Neville Chamberlain: The Great Appeaser???

[eddie]

Maybe this is another question for another thread...

Was recently talking to someone about appeasement, and they were under the impression that a lot of what Chamberlin did was to stall for time; that the Brits were not yet prepared to take on the Germans.

I'd always seen him villified before. Anyone have any info or insight?

 

[Flash]

Maybe this is another question for another thread...

Was recently talking to someone about appeasement, and they were under the impression that a lot of what Chamberlin did was to stall for time; that the Brits were not yet prepared to take on the Germans.

I'd always seen him villified before. Anyone have any info or insight?

The Germans were even less prepared than the Brits an the French to take anyone on at that time. It was a lot of bluffing on Hitler's part.

 

[pourts]

Maybe this is another question for another thread...

Was recently talking to someone about appeasement, and they were under the impression that a lot of what Chamberlin did was to stall for time; that the Brits were not yet prepared to take on the Germans.

I'd always seen him villified before. Anyone have any info or insight?

One thing to remember is that Brittain successfully followed a strategy of "appeasement" for over 100 years before WW2. Appeasement is not inherently a flawed strategy. It allowed the British Empire's hegemony to last longer than it theoretically should have. They used it with us in the 19th century.

*********
As for the ISG, they were all show no substance, and only 1 of them ever left the green zone for any length of time. They basically just put out a bunch of truisms.

Krauthammer put it the best here:
Syria should stop infiltration, declares the report. And Iran "should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq." Yes, and obesity should be eradicated, bird flu cured and traffic fatalities, particularly the multi-car variety, abolished. Such fatuous King Canute pronouncements give the report its air of detachment from reality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401367.html

we could go on forever about it in's and out's of the ISG, but that quotation summed it up pretty well.

 

[pourts]

Ya, just look how well the "you're not legit" approach worked with the People's Republic of China for the first 30 years of their existence. Nixon finally came along and recognized China, thus allowing WalMart to keep low prices, always (of course I read that in the history books, maybe A4s can enlighten me about what things were really like back then)

Not trying to be a hardass, but there is a little more to it than that, of which I am sure you are aware. This is a titillating topic, though one not well served being in the humor section.

I will say this at least, negotiation (appeasement) has a bad reputation in general since WWII, but it isn't a flawed strategy by any means. It just doesn't work every time. Nothing does.

 

[pourts]

The Germans were even less prepared than the Brits an the French to take anyone on at that time. It was a lot of bluffing on Hitler's part.

Could you elaborate on this? I am inclined to disagree, but want to give you the benefit of the doubt as HercDriver gave me.

 

[A4sForever]

Bump ... a new thread-split (the direction the original discussion was going doesn't belong in the "aviation humor" section) for those who wish to contemplate the finer points of Chamberlain/Carter-esque diplomacy (my editorializing ) ....

Chamberlain holds the paper containing the resolution to
commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself
on his return from Germany at Heston Airport in September, 1938.

He said: ..." My good friends, for the second time in our history,
a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace
with honour. I believe it is peace for our time .... ".
​

Meanwhile, in a little place called the Sudentenland ...... :

​

 

[Herc_Dude]

A4s, I think your signature says it all - "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE ... THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME ..."

If we keep failing to learn from history we are condemed to repeat it

 

[Brett327]

A4s, I think your signature says it all - "THE MORE THINGS CHANGE ... THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME ..."

If we keep failing to learn from history we are condemed to repeat it

Is this a serious question?

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

The Germans were even less prepared than the Brits an the French to take anyone on at that time. It was a lot of bluffing on Hitler's part.

I am shooting from the hip & not providing a TO&E of the German/British/French military forces in 1938 ... doing it from memory .... BUT: they weren't less prepared in September, 1938 than the Brits of French ... at least not with regards to the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. Remember, the Polish invasion was only a year away. Not too much changed with the exception of the panzers, i.e., the armored forces ...

Sure --- they were MORE prepared a year hence, obviously, but the Kriegsmarine never "really" got ready --- they wanted the "war" to be delayed for @ 5 more years. Good luck ...

 

[Herc_Dude]

Is this a serious question?

Brett

Didn't ask any questions....

 

[pourts]

Didn't ask any questions....

Maybe he's talking about the title of the thread.

 

[Cougar_62]

As A4's said above, just shooting from the hip, but I believe before and after the invasion of Poland France had something like 120 Divisions sitting behing the Maginot line and Germany had about 25 in the West. If they'd really wanted to attack, France and Britain could have rolled across Germany as fast or faster than the Germans Blitzkrieg'ed the next year.