Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leader?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#46

Post by wm » 07 Oct 2014, 21:27

ljadw wrote:In 1938,the Sudeten Germans got what they wanted
And who cared what they wanted. Without a strong, aggressive Germany the Czechs would beat the love of Czechoslovakia into them easily.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#47

Post by wm » 07 Oct 2014, 21:55

Attrition wrote:Keeping the USSR out was a matter of realpolitk, same as keeping the US out. At least for the moment the British and Frence were able to dominate the international scene a la C19th by unilaterally changing an international border. They weren't thrust into dependency on the US and they kept the USSR out of central Europe.
Many in France considered the USSR as the only worthwhile ally, the others being small fray losers. France was really trying to make the Franco-Soviet treaty of mutual assistance useful, and a cornerstone of its security.

American plutocrats would kill their mothers for an access to Russia's markets (some were there anyway, for example Ford). And then embroil the US into war in defense of their investments if the USSR was seriously threaten (btw investments very beneficial for both sides). The only requirement was the USSR behaved itself reasonably - nothing more.
Last edited by wm on 08 Oct 2014, 15:33, edited 1 time in total.


durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#48

Post by durb » 07 Oct 2014, 22:23

Coming a little far from Chamberlain but the problem of the "justified" bounders between national states / ethnical entities is highly complex issue. One could ask if Czechoslovakia was a "modern national state" in a strict sense in late 1930´s with Czech/Slovak combination, large German minority and lesser Hungarian, Ruthenian and Polish minorities. The problems with Sudeten land were not so clear either - there lived 3,25 million Germans but also 800 000 Czechs living - should not they have been guaranteed a cultural autonomy in case of annexation to Germany? Similar problems existed in Yugoslavia (Serbs vs. others) and also in Poland (was "Curzon line" better than including large Ukrainian and Belorusian territories and did Poland have "old German soil"?).

All in all it was a very confusing for a British conservative politician like Chamberlain to determine which "national demands" were "justified" ones. The easiest way to deal with such a complex issue was to give Hitler what he wanted and hope that he would be satisfied. But Hitler was not - Czechs were annexed to his Reich but there was not any German nationalist rhetoric to justify that annexation. This caused two things - Chamberlain saw that Hitler was not to be trusted and Polish were "stubborn" when it came to Danzig/Corridor (Poles had reason to believe that after first demands would come more demands and after that Poland would at best become a reduced satellite of Germany).

When we came to SD Party, it should be remembered that it was financed and backed by Germany. It may well be that SD party and "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" anyway would have got a dominant position among Sudeten Deutsch, but the financial German backup surely helped to establish its position as the dominant German party in Sudeten land. There was strong manipulation and propaganda campaign playing a part. In practice SD leader Konrad Henlein became a puppet of Hitler and his party served as a German "Fifth Column" inside Czechoslovakia. This was something that Chamberlain did not see or did not want to see.

His job was to avoid a war in Europe and keep Britain out of the complex nationalism issues of continental Europe - in 1938 easiest way to do this was to accept Hitler/Henlein demands although it meant to leave Czechs at the mercy of Hitler. It was easy but dangerous solution in a sense that it opened the Pandora box of all boundary issues related to nationalism - once the boundaries were started to be checked by "justified national demands" there would not be stop of it.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#49

Post by wm » 08 Oct 2014, 15:32

It really wasn't that complicated. They cared a little about just borders between states for a few years after the Great War.
Later it was realpolitik and spheres of interests all along. Germany got Austria and Sudetenland because its ultimatums, not because anybody cared about their longing for fatherland. The Poles got Zaolzie because Poland made itself a nuisance, and later made an ultimatum too.
And the mainstream press at that time saw the events exactly like that too. The idea it was some kind of a battle between light and darkness is a much later invention.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#50

Post by Attrition » 08 Oct 2014, 21:37

wm wrote:
Attrition wrote:Keeping the USSR out was a matter of realpolitk, same as keeping the US out. At least for the moment the British and Frence were able to dominate the international scene a la C19th by unilaterally changing an international border. They weren't thrust into dependency on the US and they kept the USSR out of central Europe.
Many in France considered the USSR as the only worthwhile ally, the others being small fray losers. France was really trying to make the Franco-Soviet treaty of mutual assistance useful, and a cornerstone of its security.

American plutocrats would kill their mothers for an access to Russia's markets (some were there anyway, for example Ford). And then embroil the US into war in defense of their investments if the USSR was seriously threaten (btw investments very beneficial for both sides). The only requirement was the USSR behaved itself reasonably - nothing more.
Who would judge Soviet reasonableness? Stalin or one of the western imperialists?

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#51

Post by Attrition » 08 Oct 2014, 21:44

ljadw wrote:Britain,France,US :military dictatorships :lol: :P
How many Indians or Nigerians or Belizeans or Chinese people could vote in Westminster elections? How many local Indians and Africans could vote in US elections? How many Senegalese or Moroccans or Algerians and Vietnamese could vote in National Assembly elections? There were forms of elected legislatures in the metropoles but the majority of the people under the authority of these legislatures, were ruled by appointed colonial administrators and armies. That's dictatorship that is.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#52

Post by Attrition » 08 Oct 2014, 21:49

The US didn't secede from anything, it didn't exist in 1776. A British civil war began with pro- and anti-state factions on both sides of the Atlantic.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#53

Post by steverodgers801 » 09 Oct 2014, 01:55

In response of how Chamberlain was fooled. He became convinced that the mighty Wehrmacht with its millions of men and machines would over run the Czechs immediately turn around over run France and then march across the channel and take over what remained of British cities after being destroyed by the mighty JU 86 transport/bomber and DO 17. France lost its nerve because they saw Britain would not support them. If he was so convinced at Munich that the Germans would win how come all of a sudden he realized they wouldn't do so in 1939??? Surely Britain didnt develop an army and airforce that quickly??

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#54

Post by ljadw » 09 Oct 2014, 08:55

Attrition wrote:
ljadw wrote:Britain,France,US :military dictatorships :lol: :P
How many Indians or Nigerians or Belizeans or Chinese people could vote in Westminster elections? How many local Indians and Africans could vote in US elections? How many Senegalese or Moroccans or Algerians and Vietnamese could vote in National Assembly elections? There were forms of elected legislatures in the metropoles but the majority of the people under the authority of these legislatures, were ruled by appointed colonial administrators and armies. That's dictatorship that is.
That's no dictatorship :P

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#55

Post by Steve » 09 Oct 2014, 11:31

Odd how Chamberlain is regularly accused of being duped by Hitler yet Churchill who it can be argued was taken in by Stalin to a greater extent almost never is. The situation in 1938 was a lot more complicated for Chamberlain than Hitler.

Chamberlain had to take into account the situation in the Far East with Japan. Would it strike against Britain and France if they were fighting a major European war? From what happened in 1942 we know that the Japanese would have gone through the British like a knife through butter. There was also the question of which way would Mussolini jump.

The Cz military alliance with the USSR was supposed to come into effect if France went to war over Cz. If my memory serves me I believe Chamberlain said he had no wish to see the Red Army in Vienna.

Britain could only field a small force in 1938 it would be the French who would be doing almost all the ground fighting. He had the impression that they did not want to fight but could not bring themselves to say it.

His Chiefs of Staff were telling him that the RAF could not stop devastating German air raids on Britain. Also that Britain and France could do nothing to prevent the German army overrunning Cz. The country would only be reconstituted after a long war that slowly ground Germany down. He thought that another long war against Germany would ruin Britain and leave it dependent on the USA. He was right.

A war would be over whether the Sudeten land should be given to Germany or whether it should have autonomy within Cz. Churchill supported autonomy. Again if my memory serves me Chamberlain said that he did not give a hoot if the area was in Germany or Cz. He thought that it would be very difficult to get the Commonwealth to support Britain if it went to war over the issue.

He believed that another great war had to be avoided, if that could only be done by letting Hitler have the Sudetenland then so be it. He thought Hitler would keep his word but re-armament never stopped it speeded up. Contrary to what many people think Britain was not poorly prepared for war when it came. Hitler breaking the Munich treaty was a surprise.

That Hitler made demands over Danzig was no surprise he had predicted Germany would want its return over a decade previously. The pass would be held at Poland but he wanted the Poles to make concessions so as to avoid war. Chamberlain and Halifax thought German economic and political dominance of Eastern Europe was inevitable in the long run and they were right. However they were not prepared to see Germany achieve dominance by force.

With regard to the Spanish civil war the British preferred Franco to a possible communist government.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#56

Post by steverodgers801 » 09 Oct 2014, 13:57

One, how was Churchill duped by Stalin. Two no one bothered to ask, except Churchill, what happens if we don't stop Hitler now. Giving in only meant that the war would be much longer, costly and in the end still ended the British empire

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#57

Post by wm » 09 Oct 2014, 14:13

ljadw wrote:
Attrition wrote:
ljadw wrote:Britain,France,US :military dictatorships :lol: :P
How many Indians or Nigerians or Belizeans or Chinese people could vote in Westminster elections? How many local Indians and Africans could vote in US elections? How many Senegalese or Moroccans or Algerians and Vietnamese could vote in National Assembly elections? There were forms of elected legislatures in the metropoles but the majority of the people under the authority of these legislatures, were ruled by appointed colonial administrators and armies. That's dictatorship that is.
That's no dictatorship :P
Hegemony? :)
Attrition wrote:Who would judge Soviet reasonableness? Stalin or one of the western imperialists?
Common sense - as autarky, fanaticism and gratuitous belligerence in international politics, eschewing political/economic cooperation with others, not to mention its inane economic system certainly weren't in the best interests of Russia, and reasonable.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#58

Post by Attrition » 09 Oct 2014, 17:14

ljadw wrote:
Attrition wrote:
ljadw wrote:Britain,France,US :military dictatorships :lol: :P
How many Indians or Nigerians or Belizeans or Chinese people could vote in Westminster elections? How many local Indians and Africans could vote in US elections? How many Senegalese or Moroccans or Algerians and Vietnamese could vote in National Assembly elections? There were forms of elected legislatures in the metropoles but the majority of the people under the authority of these legislatures, were ruled by appointed colonial administrators and armies. That's dictatorship that is.
That's no dictatorship :P
'Tis. It can't be anything else. There has never been a democratically-elected government in Britain.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#59

Post by Attrition » 09 Oct 2014, 17:15

wm wrote:
ljadw wrote:
Attrition wrote:
ljadw wrote:Britain,France,US :military dictatorships :lol: :P
How many Indians or Nigerians or Belizeans or Chinese people could vote in Westminster elections? How many local Indians and Africans could vote in US elections? How many Senegalese or Moroccans or Algerians and Vietnamese could vote in National Assembly elections? There were forms of elected legislatures in the metropoles but the majority of the people under the authority of these legislatures, were ruled by appointed colonial administrators and armies. That's dictatorship that is.
That's no dictatorship :P
Hegemony? :)
Attrition wrote:Who would judge Soviet reasonableness? Stalin or one of the western imperialists?
Common sense - as autarky, fanaticism and gratuitous belligerence in international politics, eschewing political/economic cooperation with others, not to mention its inane economic system certainly weren't in the best interests of Russia, and reasonable.
Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes? Realpolitik is common sense (one sort anyway).

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Was Neville Chamberlain really a weak and terrible leade

#60

Post by AJFFM » 09 Oct 2014, 21:57

Attrition wrote: Hasn't everyone overlooked the USSR? Dealing with an aggressive German state which was trying to dismantle the restrictions of the T of V, was only part of the policy of maintaining the status quo, which the British boss class had defended with military force 1914-1918. A slightly stronger Germany was compatible with maintaining Versailles as a counter to the industrialised USSR of the mid-1930s. Selling out a few central European liberals, socialists, communists, Jews and Czechoslovaks, was a bagatelle compared to what was at stake and a typically ruthless liberal manoeuvre.
So to maintain Versailles we help the Nazis end it?

????
Attrition wrote: That the Germans couldn't be contained within Europe, while ruled by the regime which had contained the workers and their political institutions inside Germany, was a paradox that no-one could resolve peacefully without capitulation. This was pretty clear by 1934 but not necessarily accepted, so Chamberlain and that weeks' French Prime Minister had to tread carefully along the path to war, same as Roosevelt. They had to create the means for another great European war, while maintaining the pretence of parliamentary government and the fiction of democracy, so exploring all options short of war was inescapable.
The abrogation treaty of Versailles was enough for war to be declared and France of all countries had every incentive to declare war in 35-36 (Reparations in time of a massive economic crisis in France) and no country would shed tears on Hitler nor would a large percentage of the German population.
Attrition wrote: Chamberlain and his faction benefitted from the repression of British workers since the great Crash and could get rearmament on the cheap but it reduced unemployment and increased inflationalry pressures, just after the state had taken so many risks to subvert workers' bargaining power.
Socialists nonsense.

Attrition wrote: Suez Crime of 1956
If you consider Egyptians retaining sovereignty on their own country a crime than socialists can be colonialists just like the good old USSR.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”