NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

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
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Post by David Brown » 15 May 2003 23:03

[Moved from the Polls section]


Neville Chamberlain has his place in world history, but was he a strong Prime Minister?

If you voted “YES”, then say why do you think he was a strong Prime Minister?

If you voted “NO”, then say why do you think he was not a strong Prime Minister?

Change history for a moment and assume: -

1. that Winston Churchill did not succeed Chamberlain as Prime Minister.
2. that Chamberlain remained in office as Prime Minister
3. that Chamberlain did not die in May 1940.

On the basis of how you voted, what impact do you think this would have had on the British war effort and the war in europe?

User avatar
Benoit Douville
Financial supporter
Posts: 3184
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:13
Location: Montréal

Post by Benoit Douville » 15 May 2003 23:42

Neville Chamberlain cannot come close to Winston Churchill. He was a total embarassment for England especially after the paper he sign with Hitler in 1938 and when he told the British that he have the guaranty that Hitler will not invade Czechoslovakia...

lilpink03
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 10 May 2003 19:07
Location: chicago

Post by lilpink03 » 16 May 2003 02:38

he wasnt the smartest guy in the world... in the words of hitler "I though Neville chamberlin was niice so i decided to give him my autograph"

personally i think the man was to nieve after the munich confrence. Nieve leaders tend not to be the best.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 16 May 2003 18:41

You have to understand the context of the time. The men of the age all would have been acquaintde with at least one person who died in the great war and many fought in the trenches themselves.

They feared the loss of life and the economic depression was only just lifting away.

They thought Hitler and the Nazis were reasonable people with reasonable grievences over the way Germany had been treated during the last war.

However I voted that he was a weak man! :P



regards,

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

Re: NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Post by David Brown » 16 May 2003 23:08

But what do you all think about the second part of the polls question?

David Brown wrote:
Change history for a moment and assume: -

1. that Winston Churchill did not succeed Chamberlain as Prime Minister.
2. that Chamberlain remained in office as Prime Minister
3. that Chamberlain did not die in May 1940.

On the basis of how you voted, what impact do you think this would have had on the British war effort and the war in europe?


Dave

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 17 May 2003 11:09

The country would not have had the strong impression of leadership that Churchill exuded. He would have made peace with the rest of those sodding "prgamatists" who were not pragmatic enough to see that there werent storm clouds over europe in the late thrities, but that it was already bloody RAINING!


regards,

Yngwie J.
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 10 May 2003 17:49
Location: Norway

Post by Yngwie J. » 17 May 2003 12:30

If Chamberlain had remained Prime Minister?

Britain might have started negotiations with Germany. From there, who knows what the consquenses might have been.

It has to be mentioned that Chamberlain resigned because of the German occupation of Norway. If he hadn´t resigned, isn´t it likely that he would have changed his policy towards Germany at this point?

Chamberlain has been labeled a weak man because he tried to negotiate with Hitler. But he was a man who believed in peace, and acted on his beliefs. On the other hand, I don´t believe he was the right man to lead a country at war.
I voted "unsure".

Best regards,
Yngwie J.

James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003 22:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

Post by James McBride » 17 May 2003 18:54

I have not yet voted, but I would like to ask everyone who mentioned the appeasement as the reason Chamberlain was a weak PM. What would you have done in his place? I agree that some of his statements regarding the appeasement were stupid, like "peace for a time", but when hasn't a leader tried to turn something like that into a propaganda victory.

James

User avatar
Greyfinn
Member
Posts: 895
Joined: 22 Mar 2003 08:23
Location: Gdansk

Post by Greyfinn » 17 May 2003 23:06

...if I would not banned...i will say what I think about this "man"...
Regards
Greyfinn

User avatar
David Brown
Financial supporter
Posts: 792
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 00:46
Location: Prescot on Merseyside in England.

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

Post by David Brown » 18 May 2003 00:17

Greyfinn wrote:...if I would not banned...i will say what I think about this "man"...
Regards
Greyfinn


Hello Greyfinn

So send it to me in a PM. I really do want to know what people think about the subject. It is opinion and views I am interested in, nothing else.

Take Care

Dave

User avatar
karltrowitz
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: 12 Jan 2003 07:35
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Hexham,UK

Post by karltrowitz » 18 May 2003 08:31

Although I voted him as being a poor prime minister, it must have taken some guts to stand up and declare war on Germany after all the appeasing that he and Deladier did at Munich.

Witch-King of Angmar
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 28 Feb 2003 20:40
Location: Europe

Post by Witch-King of Angmar » 18 May 2003 09:02

Yngwie J. wrote:If Chamberlain had remained Prime Minister?

Britain might have started negotiations with Germany. From there, who knows what the consquenses might have been.

It has to be mentioned that Chamberlain resigned because of the German occupation of Norway. If he hadn´t resigned, isn´t it likely that he would have changed his policy towards Germany at this point?

Chamberlain has been labeled a weak man because he tried to negotiate with Hitler. But he was a man who believed in peace, and acted on his beliefs. On the other hand, I don´t believe he was the right man to lead a country at war.
I voted "unsure".


What If:

Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler after the invasion of Norway, and he could be convinced not just to make peace, but ally Britain with Germany? was he still going to be weak? :roll:

~The Witch King of Angmar

Yngwie J.
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 10 May 2003 17:49
Location: Norway

Post by Yngwie J. » 18 May 2003 14:56

Hi!

Whitch-King of Angmar wrote :

What if ?
Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler after the invasion of Norway, and he could be convinced not just to make peace, but ally Britain with Germany? was he still going to be weak?


YES! Then I would definitively regard him as weak.

Best regards,
Yngwie J.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 18 May 2003 18:00

It is an odd thing. When Stalin signed a peace pact with Hitler, people said it was to buy time and get ready for war.

When Chamberlin "bought time for England", he was accused of selling out.

I wonder if Chamberlin knew in fact what was in the cards,but tried to buy time to get ready?

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

neville chamberlin

Post by col. klink » 18 May 2003 18:54

Before Stalin signed the pact with Hitler Japan and the USSR had a series of skirmishes in the East for over a year. So there was also a possibility of the USSR going to war with Japan when the pact was negotiated. As far as I know Britain was not facing the possibility of an invasion or war with another power at the time of Munich. By excluding USSR from the Munich talks England and France where trying to push Hitler east and maybe into a confrontation with USSR. Chamberlin may have been weak but he wasn't entirley stupid. He gambled and although he secured a bit of time to prepare he lost. I find it funny how this conservative PM is thought of in the US as a liberal appeaser.

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