Chamberlain's peace deal with Hitler
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- Hitler and the Nazi party came to power in 1933. He soon crushed all political opposition and made himself dictator. Europe’s leaders were desperate to avoid war. But were attempts to appease Hitler the right thing to do?
Visit the Churchill War Rooms and glimpse what life would have been like for staff working there during the Second World War.
Plan your visit: www.iwm.org.uk...
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollec...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwar. .
Facebook: / iwm.london
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Even Winston Churchill, his most outspoken critic and the man whose vision highlighted his predecessor’s short-sighted foreign policy, could not condemn Chamberlain, saying at his funeral, “It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? . . . They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace."
Churchill fully supported "appeasement" until 5 October 1938.
So what was Stalin up to. Just innocent bystanders. England declared war with Germany.Moreover Germany was looking to the east. They didn't care about taking over England or France. Italy tried to get them to contain Germany in Stresa but the price was too high for them. More expansion in the Mediterranean 3:57
I would love to see Chamberlains personal and state papers. As I recall after Munich he did sign up on the biggest defence budget ever, including taking on the shadow factory idea for aircraft production. When I spoke to my father about the Munich 'Peace' he told me that everyone knew a war was coming soon which was why he joined the T.A. to do his bit.
The War wasn't a case of 'if' , it was just a case of 'when'.
Many of the government papers will be at the national archives. I don’t know where his personal papers, but Google or another commenter may be able to tell you.
@@DanielsPolitics1 I believe that many of the relevant papers were 'sealed' for various reasons and are still not available to study. Hence the uncertainty about Chamberlains thinking at the time.
As we all know the PM must act on what he knows and what 'intelligence' tells him. At the time Germany was thought to be better armed than it was in fact, whilst the PM would have known the true state of UK unpreparedness. , and the lead time to get new weapons into production, (Spitfire, Hurricane and Escort ships, etc) and to train new armies.
We can see how difficult that can be when looking at US Intelligence reports on the Soviet Bloc during the 1950-60's where it is now known that Russian equipment often only existed on paper, or was non operational. More recently Saddam Hussains weapons of 'Mass Destruction'. where government policy was influenced by faulty reports.
@@solentbum If there was concern about Germany being better armed than they were, wouldn't have been to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in war letting them attrite German forces than to carve it up piecemeal?
@@user-gl5dq2dg1jdepends whether they thought CZ would attrit the Nazis significantly, or just be a delay that led to immediate invasion of France. vs let the carve-up happen and get a delay to arm up while the Nazis were busy reorganising the conquered territory and _maaayyybe_ let the Nazis and Soviets upset each other enough to start shooting.
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j There was of course the problem of French reluctance, and USA isolationism, simple geography plus the Japanese in China . Even the Oxford Union 'King and Country' debate of 1933 would have affected decisions about going to war.
As Churchill once stated, "Feeding a hungry alligator merely makes him hungry for more."
I don't think he said it like that dude.
@@TheBottlenose33 Nope. He said 'crocodile' and he was talking about neutral countries in 1940, long after Munich.
Churchill was not exactly non biased, and Chamberlain died of cancer before Churchill dumped all the blame on him.
He said feeding the croc hoping he eats you last.
For your future use --- the actual quotation is "“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill, Reader's Digest, December 1954"
Chamberlain's position has to be viewed in the context of its time. Europe had only 20 years earlier emerged from a cataclysmic war. The scale of destruction and loss of life in WWI had scarred the nation and it is understandable that people would go to almost any lengths to avoid a repeat performance. But Chamberlain did authorise re-armament and prepare the country in case his policy failed. It is also arguable that because of appeasement the UK and France declaring war on Germany in 1939 came as a surprise to Hitler, who had believed he would face no significant consequences for invading Poland. This is supported by the length of the 'Phoney War', until Germany felt ready to attack the Allies in June 1940. And even then I understand his generals would have preferred another year.
The invasion of France began in May 1940.
@@alphamikeomega5728 yes of course.
Keep in mind how long Chamberlain had been in Parliament - since 1918 - and that he’d been Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1931. He knew to the last penny what the Budget was for the Army during those years, so any claim that the poor state of the Army in 1938 was a surprise to him, is ludicrous.
One careful look at Czechoslovakia on the map would have shown Chamberlain that it wasn’t Czechoslovakia that Hitler was after…as much as the massive Skoda and Mlada Boleslava armament factories, arguably the biggest in Europe. It was only after Hitler obtained this massive infrastructure, that put Hitler on a sure war footing. To allow Hitler to obtain these factories without a shot being fired..was in a word, a disaster. Czechoslovakia had a standing army of 1 million well trained men, well equipped. Frances army had more divisions than Germany. There is very little doubt that had Hitler been challenged in Sudetenland, he would have faced a serious obstacle that would have set him back for years…not that this would have happened, as there were entire groups in the high ranks of the German military, ready to depose him at the first sign of a challenge. Czechoslovakia was No Poland, and Hitler would have won had they stood against him even alone…but he would have been bloodied beyond repair….and Chamberlain should have sensed this..instead of being driven by fear of another conflict. As Churchill famously said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and now you will have war.' - To Neville Chamberlain'…and boy was he right.
He bought time and started rearmament. He had lost 2 allies from WWI, Russia went communist and Usa went isolationist. His last ally, a traumatised France was hiding behind the hope if the Maginot line and refused and efforts at confronting Germany.
The parallels to the current international situation are uncomfortably close.
I still believe that war is an absolute last resort. Reading currently about the buildup to WWI makes me realise that once momentum for war builds up it is very difficult to stop it, regardless of considerations of logic and reason.
Logic and reason don’t come into it. Why have we allowed the racist leftwing vermin to constantly promote hatred towards whites? There’s nothing rational about that’s. Humans are largely emotional and irrational creatures
If you're alluding to the Ukrainian debacle, no, there's little connection. Germany had the might to do as it pleased for quite some time, there's zero chance (even if they wished to, which they don't) of Moscow expanding this war. Course one could say that'll depend on NATO actions.
@@feedyourmind6713 no, I believe the frightening rise of fascism in most Western countries is the bigger indicator of where we are heading.
@ayela562 Not sure true Fascism is abounding. Fascist policies, no doubt.
@@ayela562
Anything that’s not on the left is fascism…. Give me a break
It was a bad policy. Sure there were benefits to delaying the war but it was far mitigated by the negatives of allowing the nazis to consolidate politically and militarily
Exactly. It's not like the UK and France were rearming and Germany was twiddling its thumbs. It was expanding its military and might even further, with lots of extra captured resources and slave labour. It also allowed Germany time to commit atrocities on a grander scale.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In the 1930s, the SovietUnion was the bogeyman of Europe, as the communists had caused a civil war that had killed millions of people. Afterwards the communist government stole everybodies land and property and killed any political opposition. Hitler on the other hand came to power with the help of reasonable conservative people and was a staunch opponent of communism. So what could possibly go wrong?
@@DeanFWilson
I'm sorry, do you mean the UK/Allied powers appeasement of the Soviet Union allowed it to commit atrocities on a grander scale in the actual death camps and slave labor camps?
"It isn't possible to reason with someone who is unreasonable" - And that is true in case of Putin. But does everyone sees it?
yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.
If Putin had leftist inclinations I guarantee the West would've started battling him early 2000s. Fascists get an initial pass by the West whereas leftists are actively engaged from the start
For anyone slightly aware of history and somewhat sane of mind, it should be clear that appeasement is what causes this war in Ukraine.
Sudetenland / Crimea
@@auto_revolt Indeed.
I have come to have the highest respect for all IWM videos. But this is perhaps the best one I have ever seen. Everything is put perfectly into the context of the time. The world did not yet understand the depths of Hitler’s evil. And that he never told the truth. Which he used to his great advantage. Bravo IWM…
I found truth is not the highest value of many politicians.
I think the Treaty of Versailles was not a good end or new beginning to the world order . It was a treaty that was going to cause problems regardless .
There was no "evil".
@@MarkHarrison733There isn’t really evil I guess. But he’s a pretty reasonable person to call evil. Regardless he lost disastrously and shot himself in a bunker.
Looking at the behaviour of Hitlers agents in the early days such as their attempts to capture and bring down Albert Einstein for predicting and preaching what would be coming with Hitler in charge were signs that foretold how dangerous Hitler was. Awesome that Einstein was rescued and hidden and protected as the nazis went to great lengths to get rid of him and anyone else smart enough to try to warn the Germans that lapped up Hitlers lies
To sell out the Czechs in 1938 was a complete & shameful failure on the part of the French & British. No amount of time "gained" by doing so outweighed the additional strength it gave Germany nor the political clout the Allies lost in doing so. A black eye in the history of European diplomacy.
Well said.
Why should Britain have sacrificed anything for Czechoslovakia?
@@seanlander9321 Smh. Before getting into the "why", your question seems to indicate that you feel Britain should not have sacrificed anything for Poland either; extrapolating from that then, Britain should have been unwilling to sacrifice anything for Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. etc. Am I correct in that assessment of your feelings on the subject?
@@robertdickson9319 Very much so. The sacrifices Britain made for Europe were a complete waste and a thankless task. Quite frankly if Europe had remained as a German colony, Britain would have been much better off and a whole lot of trouble and loss would have been averted
@@seanlander9321 If that is your belief, the "why" reasons for helping Czechoslovakia are basically irrelevant - but in a nutshell, by taking over Czechoslovakia the Germans acquired a great deal of financial, economic & military wealth that helped fuel their rearmament & kept the German economy afloat for the next 2 years. Essentially it would have far easier to defeat Germany in 1938 than it proved to be in 1940.
I would argue that while some in Britain may think it was "a complete waste & thankless task", I think that the majority of Europe, especially the Europe of 1945, would disagree. The sacrifices of Britain (in addition to other countries) basically enabled the greatest period of peace & prosperity in European history. If you feel that the fruits of the past 75 years, both from a British & European perspective, were not worth it then there is not much I can say to that to change your mind.
Many people in 1938 felt the same way you do today - allow Germany a free hand in Europe. Britain can survive alone. Certainly Hitler wanted that as it would have made his desire to conquer Russia far easier to attain. Any further British independence after that, however, would have likely come with a price - maybe you would be willing to make that Faustian bargain but I don't think it would be the popular choice.
Enjoyable and informative bit of history. Well presented by the historian/ curator. Well done.
As somebody who is striving to be a historian, this is one of my favorite debates that test historical perspective. It is incredibly difficult to remove our twenty-twenty hindsight vision on what happened to consider Chamberlain's perspective because he did have reasons to do what he did and it could be argued that he bought time for GB to prepare.
True, but Chamberlain did admit in his memoirs that he'd been duped by Hitler.
Even with 20/20 hindsight.....what if the Allies would have gone to war in late 1938?
Hitler's decision to annex Czechoslovakia (in March 1939) was breach of the treaty of Munich and also the proof that there was no way to stop him without a war (or, at the very least, the threat of war).
So, the British and French public was far more willed to accept the need to go to war in September 1939 than they would have been in October 1938.
Militarily speaking, Germany would have been in a much less favorable situation in an October 1938 war.
But what if they would have managed to defeat Czechoslovakia faster than expected? Would the British and French public been willed to continue the war?
What would have been the situation of Poland? They took a small part of Czech territory in October 1938 - would they have done the same in a alternate timeline with a war in late 1938, thus allying with Germany?
Lots of things that could have gone horribly wrong.......so, while going to war in 1938 would most likely have been the lesser evil compared to September 1939, we will never know what would have happened.
There is no need for twenty-twenty hindsight. All you need is see the things from Czechoslovakian side of border at that time. Czechs knew what was coming, but sadly nobody was willing to listen.
I recommend a book 'Countdown to war' by Geoffrey Cox. He was stationed as a reporter in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and writes about the whole topic and the way Britain deliberately looked away and listened only to Germany.
I do understand how misleading hindsight can make things. But man, when someone writes down that they want to conquer most of Europe in a manifesto presented as a memoir, and then launches a coup, seizes dictatorial power, and immediately and aggressively (to put it mildly) rearms his nation, it's really hard to give Chamberlain the benefit of the doubt.
I don't necessarily blame everyone involved, things are messy and apparently his book wasn't widely read, but they were literally, literally, told exactly what was going to happen. And then when it started, they continued to imagine that it wouldn't.
It is wise to doubt the promises politicians make to you. It is moronic and unforgivable to not heed the overt, unsubtle, undisguised threats they make.
@@tomaskoupil5994 I still wonder what would have happened if the Czecks said FU to Chamberlain and Hitler and said we will fight for our own country.
The title should be "Was peace with Churchill ever possible?" instead
It wasn't "appeasement" when Britain and France were occupying half of the world.
You're not supposed to say that.
The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to capture all the military equipment in the Sudetenland, including more than 400 tanks, 2,000 artillery canons, 500 AAA guns, a million rifles, & a billion rounds of small arms ammunition. If appeasement helped anyone to rearm, it was Germany…
How would you have stopped it?
@@julianshepherd2038 there was no stopping the war at that point; the right course was to defend Czechoslovakia
@@julianshepherd2038 IMHO Hitler would stop it himself, if he has seen resolute alliance of Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and with high probability also of Poland. Interesting fact is, that during Munich crisis German army was not mobilized. That suggests that Hitler was counting on disunity and political weakness of his opponents, but also indicates that he would not dare to risk war in autumn 1938. What would happen later is of course purely speculative exercise...
Reocupy the Rhineland
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Defend it with what is the point being raised though. France was a shambles and risked a lot of political/revolutionary issues (even during the actual war, there was work stoppages organised by communists/socialists and the army was having issues even with a year of preparing). The British were also in no way, shape or form ready for war with both parties running on a non war election. Both armies/nations were planning a total industrial war mentality and their plans were set and ready for a 1942 war due to that, a war in which they would have more than enough trained men (important point, conscripts cant do much) and the equipment and vehicles to push it.
They knew they could win the war and expected to win it, the problem was that the French simply ignored their field commanders/had serious doctrinal issues which the Germans got extremely lucky in exploiting, any other plan and the Germans would likely have lost the war without France falling. Even the German commanders planned a war which would quickly see them obviously losing but take minimal losses, then 1 madman came to Hitler with "a great idea!" which was looney against France if France actually listened to its recon forces.
Stanley Baldwin was as much to blame for 'Appeasement' as Chamberlain. And we would have had a 'third appeaser' had Lord Halifax been given the top job. Thank goodness for Winston Churchill. Thank goodness also for R J Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, and all those independent aircraft companies who gave us such well designed and efficient fighting machines that could deal with the German menace. All independent and private, working on their own initiative, with not a trace of nationalised industry to drag it down.
"In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers." -- Neville Chamberlain
War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.
That’s easy to say…. but pretending that the consequences of losing are no greater than those of victory, is utterly dishonest. If it is quoted in context, it shows how unfit Chamberlain was to face an aggressive Germany.
@@peterwebb8732 absolutely. If winning is so bad, try losing. Ask Poland.
What a bloody idiotic thing to say. Tell that to a Jew or an Israeli.
That's exactly what a man that gave in to the world's most infamous dictators. He might have been trying to avoid war but it didn't work. The Allies were both winners and victors.
Always a good day when the imperial war museum uploads
I agree!! I went to the museum a few years ago and was thoroughly impressed!! Such a gem!
@@Dotthel Nice, I myself had the pleasure of visiting their london museum a few weeks ago and found it amazing
I have found it is increasingly a museum set up to eulogise Churchill.
On September 3, 1939 it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany. A video examining the Ten-Year Rule and Britain's woeful lack of preparedness in 1938 might go some way to explaining Chamberlain's decision.
Appeasement has never worked.
Very true,just look at China or Russia
@@WoahYeah1984 yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.
It doesn't work but if fuels modern capitalism
@@igorGriffiths What do you mean fuels modern capitalism
@@WoahYeah1984 capitalists will do business with their countries enemies and endanger national security for profit, no morals in capitalism
Yes, there is a very good reason Chamberlin has the debuffs he has in Hearts of Iron IV.
And that's why we're arming Ukraine and not allowing Russia to take that territories, even if I think it won't be enough.
Mrstefano, west should also defend taiwan and this is a very important issue.
Hitler did not attack us, why attack Hitler?
-anti war people in the 1940s
Most of the populous of Luhansk and Donetsk are Russian speakers and want to be in the Russian federation. In the end inevitably there will be a negotiated peace. In my opinion those two territories will be in the Russian federation, Ukraine will be in the E.U but it won't be in NATO and then the sanctions will be lifted. But it will probably require Putin to resign, die or be overthrown. Stalin died, Khrushchev was overthrown.... Hmmm. Where is that super fast acting cancer the CIA created in the 60's ? or the legendary death ray beamed from space. :)
@@RaghulS-hj6vt USA (along with Philippines, Japan and Indonesia) should sign a defence pact and make a binding commitment to defend Taiwan.
@@johncostello3174strategic ambiguity is a working strategy.
It still baffles me that the European powers didnt see what was coming from Hitler. Especially after he started annexing territories...
All he wanted was the return of Germany's territory.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw sure, bud
@@major_kukri2430 France invaded Germany in 1939, and the USSR invaded Poland and Finland in 1939.
@@major_kukri2430 He said on 19 July 1940, "I asked from Poland something no other German statesman could have dared. I asked for the return of the old German provinces, then only with a plebiscite. If Churchill and the warmongers felt half the responsibility toward Europe that I did they never would have started the war. On September 2, 1939, war still could have been avoided. The British and the French wanted war, however they wanted a three-year war in order reap profits from their war investments ... After 18 days the Polish campaign ended. Then I issued an appeal to responsible men. I warned all against war, particularly the French against the pursuance of a war which would be horrible. This only served to incite the Franco-British warmongers, who saw their war profits most endangered. They began, however, to call it danger to civilization and culture."
@MarkHarrison733 ok. Then what was he doing being in literally every other country? I'm not buying that he only wanted old German territories when somehow he was in North Africa, eastern Europe, and committing a full-on genocide. Remember, u have decades' worth of hindsight.
Seems wrong to label the British aristocracy anti semitic to the exclusion of the rest of British society. Across British society as a whole there were not uncommon anti jewish views
A pretty minimal proportion, though. What other countries opened up for the Kindertransport? (That's a fairly genuine question)
@@andrewflindall9048 True, Britain took in 20,000 Jews before the war started overall, more than anyone else iirc from my college days.
Just as an anecdote I also knew an old man - who's dead now so I can say this - who admitted to me with some pride I might add to firebombing Jewish shops with his friends in Glasgow when they were growing up in the 1940s as teenagers. They were working class boys and they must have felt very hostile to new Jewish businesses opening shops in their area and thought they had to do something. Which just goes to show how much anti-Jewish sentiment there was in British society at the time. When I heard all this I remember it coming out of nowhere and just finding the whole story perculiar
Hitler offered peace: 6 October 1939, also 19 july 1940. The allies simply didn't want peace. 50 million deaths after they wrote history. And one is suposed to look our countries today and say "worth it"...
o/
You are one of very few channels that is not repeating Nazi lie about Sudetenland being taken away from Germany and being given to Czechoslovakia as a result of Versailles treaty. Thank you!
I missed that part somehow. I thought it was true. What's the true story?
@@michaelhowell2326
The true story is that the Sudetenland was part of Bohemia (old name of Czech lands) from very early mediaeval times. Even later, when Bohemia got ruled by Austria-Hungary, the region was still part of Bohemia. Look up any map from that period, it simply wasn't part of Germany.
Germans got there as settlers, invited by the rulers of Bohemia, to help settle and populate this mountainous area.
Look up map of Austro-Hungarian empire and you will see that it isn't part of Germany.
No-one says that the Sudetenland was taken away from Germany. Who said that? I'm interested in WW2 and have never heard that on anywhere. I've read Ian Kershaw's two book biography on Adolf Hitler and he never says that the Sudetenland was "taken from Germany". Most UA-cam videos and documentaries say that the Sudetenland had millions of Germans and the Germans wanted it to be part of Germany as the majority of the population was German. The Sudetenland was never part of the Kaiser's German Reich. There's a reason why Posen became part of Poland instead of staying part of Weimar Germany. Same principle, as Posen was majority Polish so why should it stay part of Germany?
The problem with Munich wasn't giving the Sudetenland to the Germans, it was giving it to Hitler.
So which UA-cam channels repeat that "Nazi lie"? and which videos?
@@tomaskoupil5994 But it was part of German Austria, and once the Austria-Hungarian Empire collapsed, the Austrians were prohibited from uniting with Germany, and Germans in Sudetenland went under the newly formed Czechoslovakia. So indeed, the Germans in Sudetenland were deprived of the right to have self-determination and join Germany.
@goldbullet50 that doesn't mean Germany had any sort of claim on that land. Germans living there or not
I don't know how valid this comparison would be, but it seems to me that failure to support the Ukraine would be similar to the abandonment of the Czechs by Britain and France.
The very reason why we need organisations such as NATO.
We do not need them over in the Pacific
@@jacktattis That's why SEATO exists.
We were not strong enough to fight Hitler when Chamberlain was PM!
So, the British intention was to wage war against Germany since the beginning? Amazing.
Thank you for making & posting this.
Britain and France did not have the ability to defeat Germany.
Chamberlain should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
His unworkable pact ensured Stalin invaded fascist Poland in 1939.
Appeasement is NOT a byword for weakness. It IS weakness.
Yeah, nothing spells weakness like appeasing the Soviet Union which has already murdered nearly 20 million Russians and Ukrainina by the time FDR recognized the Soviet Union.
The current war between with Ukraine and Russia over Russia wanting to steal Ukraine’s East makes for an interesting validation of Churchill’s stance on appeasement. Would World War II had been so globally devastating if Hitler had to fight for all of Czechoslovakia, instead of being given a back door.
Well, the parallel would've been if France and Britain had provided war materiel to Czechoslovakia for it to fight for its independence. This is not war footing, but just enough to make Hitler think twice about declaring direct war on both of them. Evil men hellbent on conquest, like Hitler and Putin, only listen when they're stopped and beaten soundly with full force. If Hitler had experienced such forceful resolve from the Allies early on, he would've thought twice about being so aggressive by 1939 and 1940.
@@pdruiz2005 it’s been said Hitler didn’t conquer Europe, allied leadership lost Europe.
@@AFGuidesHD Rubbish.
The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with a desire to "steal land". It is solely about demilitarizing Ukraine, forcing neutrality upon it and creating a buffer zone between Washington Pact forces and Russia. The Russians did not appreciate the US installing Anti-Russian stooges in Kiev back in 2014. After 8 years of waiting and empty promises from the US , Russia decided to invade to force the situation. Would the US tolerate a militarized, openly Anti US regime in Mexico and/ Canada ? Of course not !
Would WWII been as devastating, if GB and France had not declared war on Germany over Poland, which they couldn't even defend in any capacity?
The economy of Weimar Germany was starting to recover by 1932/3. Read AJP Taylor on the Origins of the Second World War, with Hitler as an opportunist and the failure of Britain and France to confront Germany from the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.
Yes, of course, being that Hitler admired England's domination of the world and his desire for an alliance.
This video doesnt mention that it wasn't simply Hitler vs Czechoslovakia, but Poland and Hungary were also aiming for territorial gains. Also doesnt mention that rhe defensive alliance was between Czechoslovakia and France, stemming from the 1920s. Also doesnt mention the sinple geographic fact that the UK had no realistic way of defending Czechoslovakia against Germany (and Hungary, and maybe even Poland), and the Royal Air Force needed more time to build its strength.
Chamberlain traded an impossible defense of Czechoslovakia for time to continue rearming. It was the smart move at the time. The situation in Fall 1939 was considerably different, the build up to WW2 wasnt linear or simple.
It can be argued that Britain's condemnation of Italy's annexation of Ethiopia contributed significantly to World War II. Had Britain, who at the time, had its empire, not done this Italy would have stood up against German annexation of Austria in 1938 as it had in 1934. As it was the condemnation led to Italy drawing closer to Germany thus being a major contributing factor to the outbreak of war in 1939.
Interesting idea. I have no idea of it's possible merits, but in principle, it goes to show how extremely difficult it is to acess decisions even after the fact. So passing judgement on Chamberlain and others is really impossible. Yet, we all have to decide things everyday, and tend to want to think it matters one or the other way what we decide. Hence perhaps our want to evaluate historical decisions - particularly by others!
@@andersgrassman6583 Baldwin was Prime Minister during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War.
Attlee threatened to bring down the government when Chamberlain tried to increase the size of the RAF.
I'm surprised the IWM would continue to push the narrative that Chamberlain was a passive-appeaser, when the evidence shows that British rearmament stepped up massively during his tenure as Prime Minister. It was the actions of Chamberlain that saw the BEF actually be in a position to embark to fight a campaign in France as the only wholly mechanised force, and the RAF have the capacity in manufacturing, pilot training, and airfield availability to win the Battle of Britain.
Two things can be true at the same time.
Chamberlain understood Hitler better than we give him credit for, as is clear from the private correspondence he had with his sister. His appeasement of Hitler was to buy time given Britain's woeful unpreparedness for war, which is why he stepped up rearmament.
British rearmament did not stop the British-led Allies from loosing all of (the continental) Europe to the totalitarian powers. German rearmament which was way faster did prevent it. It was way faster because of the unwillingness of the appeasers to acknowledge the fact that the war was on the horizon, so they made the rearmament half-hearted until it was late. Irrational people that either view the world as a zero-sum, or lose-lose game whatever happens, rarely understand carrots, as they think that by sacrificing the carrot one just makes a gambit and will spring a trap. Stick, on the other hand, is more in-line with their thinking and therefore is infinitely more effective. If you want to stop a dictator, show him a big stick and a willingness to use it, as it was done in CW1. If you want to dictator to win, try to make a deal with him and try hard to think that he holds the interests of his nation dear to his heart (spoiler he's not, at least not as the outsiders view them)
We can debate the measure of reasonable actions to maintain peace. However selling out your sovereign allies is about as craven as could be imagined.
What do you mean by allies though. We may be sympathetic to Ukraine at the moment but no country is going to declare war on Russia as we aren't formal allies with Ukraine.
The best opportunity to stop Germany from expansion was in 1936 when the Germany military occupied the DMZ along the French border. Had the WWII allies stood together, Hitler would have lost face. But that didn't happen.
Very well said. Thank you.
The answer to the question is right in the description of the video. Today, we just can't imagine the desperation that was abound to avoid another war. And perhaps even more critical was that almost everyone was incredulous at the thought of anyone actually WANTING to start another war. Between those two facts, they would have done anything, absolutely anything to avoid another catastrophe. In the years I've been studying this period of history, that is the conclusion I've reached beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's more than politics, it speaks to human nature.
I have to thank you for this reportage as the citizen of the Czech Republic. It was very interesting to see the view of the UK on a history of my own nation.
Of course you like the same lies!!!
If you look who gets off the plane at Croydon Airport behind Chamberlain, it’s Alec Douglas-Home,. He hadn’t yet become Earl of Home, and was known by a junior title. He was then a bag carrier, but 24 years later, he became pm.
There are a few small errors here. I’m surprised the IWM overlooked them. The Germans did not take over all of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 39, and the Versailles treaty had little to do with high unemployment in 1933.
Nicely done. For such a short presentation it covers the important points very well. One criticism of graphics, when showing Germany and Chekoslovakia (Sp. ouch) one should color in Austria as black as well to show its attachment to Germany and how the Cheks were surrounded from the west as well. Really a very untenable position for them.
Was Chamberlain wrong to appease Hitler? I thought this question had been answered many years ago... 84 years ago to be exact
I read Mein Kamf and not sure how anyone could ignore the megalomania spewing from those pages? 😮
Most people judges with a mindset of today and forget about colonial mindset. Chamberlain had to prioritize over Europe and deal with the empire that was already in decline politically and economically. From imperial mindset it was all very logical - he knew that one more war would destroy the empire so he put his bet to avoid it. He did not have to sacrifice any colonies - Great Britain pushed Mussolini into Hitler's arms when they tried blocking the expansion in Libia and Ethiopia. Before 1935, Mussolini was seeking an alliance with Britain and signed Stresa Pact, but Britain's imperial policy alienated Italy quickly. Once teamed with Mussolini, Hitler became confident enough to raise his bets. Overall, Chamberlain had little choice, either give up the empire, or start a war.
Mandella Effect: "Peace IN OUR Time." Chamberlin never said that. "Peace FOR OUR TIME."
Superb summary.
Love your work, IWM 👍
The Munich Agreement never failed. It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II.
He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
Winston Churchill during the 1913-14 debate over naval estimates:
“We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”
Judging by the title, I expected more than merely a summary of the events leading up to the war.
Chamberlain delaying the war helped the Allies in the long run. Hitler moaned he should have gone to war earlier but was prevented by being appeased at first...
Right. He wanted to go to war earlier but was prevented by being appeased at first....
That's why he convened a 4 power meeting to discuss Sudetenland to prevent a war..
it is worth noting that Czechoslovakia had a very good, fairly large and well-equipped
modern army and airforce.
it was entirely possible that it could have successfully defended itself
against the 1000 (12) year reich, which was itself not as well prepared as the Brits and French thought it was, while the Czechoslovaks were.
the Czechoslovaks were told by the "great powers" at the time, that they could expect no help.
the Czechoslovak government felt it had no choice but to acquiesce, and so an opportunity to
potentially save Europe and the world from the depredations of the big h and his murderous cronies,
was lost.
It's debatable (wrong?) to say that Britain and France were not ready for War at the time of Munich and bought time, because: 1) The Czech army and defences were of high quality and modern (compared to Poland). 2) Germany was less prepared than in 1939. 3) Hugely important: Litvinov was the Jewish foreign minister of the USSR and wanted to back Czechoslovakia. Seeing the West abandon Czechoslovakia led Stalin to replace him with Molotov and pursuer his own pro-Nazi/appeasement policy. Tory Chamberlain and his appeaser pals were more terrified of Communism than the Nazis.
they weren't ready for war. its not about the Czechs or Polish, but domestic mobilisation, defences, and industry. They were not prepared for this in the 1930s.
Britain was certainly not ready for war in any shape or form in 1939. No way. Where do you get your history from ? I got mine from talking to people who had been in the army or air force at the time. My father joined the Royal Armoured Corps in 1941. They had nothing much to fight with except very lightweight unreliable tanks with ineffective guns. The hills round me are peppered with RAF training aircraft crash sites as they could not navigate accurately in poor weather. No way were we ready for war.
Great video, thanks for the history lesson.
I feel like this is just another case where historians are conflating Germanys resurgence beyond Versailles as "aggressive militarization" and "expansion". Of course....those things are always OK when Britain and America do it and the media promotes it, if anything.
Neville Chamberlain had an excellent record as PM, and I'm sure he really believed in appeasement. It's a shame he went down in history for this policy. Unfortunately he didn't have the necessary foresight as Churchill did. And that's why appeasement of Putin hasn't even been tried in the past year. When he invaded Ukraine I wondered if it was a second Czechoslovakia. Even worse, since war in Ukraine would be bad for Europe's economy, as it obviously was.
Nuts! Putin was appeased 3 times. Once in 2008 in Georgia Invasion, in the Syria Civil War, were Russian Interests are defended because assad regime supports them and 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. And as history repeats itself the appeasement didnt work. Only thing you can argue helped was to give more time to prepare caus UA couldnt hope to defend in 14 than in 22, they have been training and preparing since then
@@balian9177 Crimea wasn't so much appeasement as a successful Russian "fait accompli"; they had taken Crimea before anyone really had time to react.
'Neville Chamberlain had an excellent record as PM' 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
@@deek0146ut like Hitler's annexations, people who were paying attention (not, like, reading classified intelligence or are just perpetual cynical cranks, just people who were watching what was happening in the open) knew it was coming.
And I'm not a military expert, so I can't speak to what level of general preparedness existed in the region, but it wasn't an instant done deal situation, and if there had been any level of actual Western military response to the crypto separatists and transparently disguised Russian soldiers, it wasn't something Russia would have been ready to fight over.
That foresight from Churchill was to allow the Japanese to invade Australia while keeping our troops in Europe. That is why Curtin opened our country to the USA. Britain NO Churchill had let us down
In 20 years we'll be asking why did we appease the CCP
For example in Southern Africa I've watched white people attempt to appease Mugabe for example, he just took it that he'd broken any resistance to his demands and carried on. Total waste of time.
Go away, troll.
Labour would not let the government rearm in 1935-38.
Attlee even threatened to bring down the government when Chamberlain tried to increase the size of the RAF.
Source?
@@robertcottam8824 Every biography of Attlee.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw
Such as?
I have a ‘Reader’s Pass’, allowing me access to all primary sources, recorded in the ‘Anglophone/sphere’, published since 1679, available (free) and accessible within 14 working days. That’s how academia works.
If you inform me as to where you found this Attlee bombshell, I’d be delighted to check from say, Hansard or any published diaries etc.
If you are interested in serious study, then you too can acquire such a pass. They are free and available to ALL UK residents over the age of twelve. It’s that simple - in theory. But the will to do could be difficult to summon.
Thus: Where I can I find this Attlee revelation when I visit my nearest library on Monday?
Pip pip.
NB: I have a copy of ‘Citizen Clem’ (2017) John Bew’s excellent biography of Attlee in my own private library. In fact, I have it in front of me as I type.
There’s nowt to which you allude in it. 🙈
There’s nothing in Hansard either. I just checked…
@@robertcottam8824 Even wikipedia mentions it in detail:
Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the Labour Party's official policy had been to oppose rearmament, instead supporting internationalism and collective security under the League of Nations.[46] At the 1934 Labour Party Conference, Attlee declared that, "We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute book something which will make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country".[47] During a debate on defence in Commons a year later, Attlee said "We are told (in the White Paper) that there is danger against which we have to guard ourselves. We do not think you can do it by national defence. We think you can only do it by moving forward to a new world. A world of law, the abolition of national armaments with a world force and a world economic system. I shall be told that that is quite impossible".[48] Shortly after those comments, Adolf Hitler proclaimed that German rearmament offered no threat to world peace. Attlee responded the next day noting that Hitler's speech, although containing unfavourable references to the Soviet Union, created "A chance to call a halt in the armaments race ... We do not think that our answer to Herr Hitler should be just rearmament. We are in an age of rearmaments, but we on this side cannot accept that position".[49]
In June 1936, the Conservative MP Duff Cooper called for an Anglo-French alliance against possible German aggression and called for all parties to support one. Attlee condemned this: "We say that any suggestion of an alliance of this kind-an alliance in which one country is bound to another, right or wrong, by some overwhelming necessity-is contrary to the spirit of the League of Nations, is contrary to the Covenant, is contrary to Locarno is contrary to the obligations which this country has undertaken, and is contrary to the professed policy of this Government".[52] At the Labour Party conference at Edinburgh in October Attlee reiterated that "There can be no question of our supporting the Government in its rearmament policy".[53]
"One worth trying"? It is undeniable that an offensive campaign in 1936 for the Rhineland or a defensive campaign in 1938 for Chechoslavakia would have been better for the Allies than the defensive campaign in 1940. In fact, Hitler had ordered his commanding general during the Rhineland campaign to retreat if he saw the French Army was moving in. Appeasement was a failure, and those who lived through it had no doubts as to that.
Well said.thank you.
What is the point of the irritating “background” ( not so background) muzak ?
To protect Czechoslovakia, it would be a land war and the British Army could only muster 2 fully equipped infantry divisions for deployment at the time. Chamberlain's appeasement bought Britain a bit more time. By the battle of France, the British Army managed to field 13 divisions in Europe but even that was very tiny when compared with the 141 German divisions Hitler deployed.
Anti war and peace terms was surprisingly popular , people forget this.
I think mostly because Britain was battle fatigued from ww1
Outstanding presentation! Thank you!
And history repeat itself again
Would.
Remember the harsh terms inflicted on France after the Prussian war, and the harsh term inflicted on Russia in 1917. The Germans had conquered and destroyed much of France and Belgium. Who invaded who here?
Chamberlain had little choice as I think he knew asking those who had fought in the first world war to send their children to fight for a place they may not have heard of and which they had no emotional tie with would never have worked.
300 years of British Empire's history betrays your laughable comment.
Britain and France had strong pacifist movements in the 30s. After the horrors of WW1 popular opinion was fully behind the effort to avoid another major war.
In the end appeasement was a failure and people rallied behind the war effort, in Britain and the dominions and later, despite isolationism, America after Pearl.
Something we (and the modern dictators that want to be our enemies) should remember.
Appeasement never failed.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw - Of course it did. Hitler could have been stopped and beaten in ’38.
If the Allies called his bluff and he invaded Czechoslovakia, his own army generals had a coup prepared to topple him and Germany would have been at war with the UK, France , Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania all at once.
@@FlyxPat Poland and Romania sided with Germany in 1938. Any plot would have failed as badly as the July Bomb Plot.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw - Nope, they sided with the Allies in 1938 since the Allies’ policy was to betray Czechoslovakia. If the UK and France had honoured the alliance with Czechoslovakia and stood up to Germany, Poland and Romania would have done so too, as allies of France. And the German generals would have rebelled if Hitler forced a war. WW2 would have been avoided and Europe saved.
@@FlyxPat Fascist Poland sided with its ally Nazi Germany throughout the Sudeten Crisis, as Churchill confirmed.
The German traitors would have been destroyed in 1938, as they were in July 1944.
Churchill WAS a warmonger
Saying he wasn't is just unhistorical
He did, at least, buy us time.
Bought the nazi's a whole load of time to invade much of europe as well.
Yes but rearmament was too little and almost too late.
*them
He bought Germany time. And Germany used that time better
No he didn’t
England didn’t ramp up arms production until to late
In answer to the original question, 'was peace with Hitler ever possible?', the matter of 'peace with whom?' has be be raised.
I'm not going into to the specifics of each country because the answer would simply take too long to write.
The overall answer is probably 'no' but that doesn't mean that the result of the Munich Agreement was the wrong one.
From the British perspective, Chamberlain knew full well that war was coming, probably with Germany and he was rearming as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, the topic is usually clouded with absolutes about 'appeasement', which didn't play much of a role in this and the question of abandonment of Czechoslovakia, which is entirely debatable.
From the British perspective, Chamberlain knew full well that war was coming, probably with Germany and he was rearming as quickly as possible"
No. He was profiting from the military industrial complex.
@@michaelwilliamson4759 Nonsense.
@@thethirdman225
Right.
Want to go brush up on your knowledge of the 300+ years of the British Empire and its bloody campaign across continents, tearing people apart, and robbing people of their freedom? For riches and mastery over natural resources?
Go talk to the Boers or Africans that the British placed in concentration camps (GASP! The British mind invented this concept?!) and starved to death 20,000+ Boer women and children. Along with Africans.
@@thethirdman225
My comment was removed it seems.
300+ years of the English's history.
That is all. You can go study the history. The British go to war for any reason and they always declare their pious war aims to the world. It is nothing but a disguise to hide their material goals.
This video is the result of DEI and it's like a soulless awkward highschool presentation
Didn't Britain sign an agreement with Hitler allowing Germany to build their navy no more than 35% of the British? Which totally undermined the Versailles Treaty?
It is worth noting that the German General Staff was adamantly opposed to the invasion of the Rhineland in 1936 knowing full well that they were not remotely ready to oppose the French who had the largest standing Army in the world. German troops had orders to immediately retreat if France repelled them. General von Brausich (sic) Chief of the High Command, had an order on his desk for the Arrest of Hitler and the Nazi chiefs if that occurred,with the Army seizing the Government. France stumbled. WWII was guaranteed.
Not enforcing the military restrictions of the Versailles treaty was part of the appeasement, not the reason for it.
What was the position of the Baldwin government on this ? Of Anthony Eden ? Of Lloyd George ?
Would they have supported France if France had taken military action ?
Wik says that "Eden's statement firmly ruled out any military assistance to France."
Let me guess:
Your source:
“Trust me, bro! I read it in a book!”
We should always strive for peace. Once it started, France had a huge army but rolled over quickly. Perhaps, Chamberlin should have had a red line for the Nazi’s first con quest, which we found out later was a test of European will.
This is so misguided. Chamberlain wasn't a stubborn appeaser. He emphasized increases in military spending. Britain simply wasn't in a position to go to war cause the German arms industry was so far ahead in 38 and thus czechoslovakia had to be given up. Shocking that the imperial war museum does not know this and I am saying this as a German.
There was no such thing as a reluctance to plan for war. Both France and Britain increased there military spending substantially from 35 onwards. They were simply lagging two years behind. Without chemberlains spitfires, Britain would have lost the war.
The British Army did not suddenly fall into a hole.
It was unready because it had been starved for funds for years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who created the Government Budget from 1931-37, was Neville Chamberlain.
He knew that the Army was being starved. It was some horrible surprise that he only found out when he became PM.
@@peterwebb8732 There was a depression. Spending money on weapons or the army in a depression is not a good plan anyway. Apart from that they didn't think anybody was mad enough to start another war after the last one. Nobody had calculated on Hitler.
@@timhancock6626 Depression? Maybe that’s fair, but it’s still wrong to argue as though the poor state of the military was something that Chamberlain only found out in 1938.
Secondly, the fear that Hitler would start another major war was precisely the reason for the appeasement. You can’t have it both ways.
The European unwillingness to deal with Putin properly before February 24th 2022 do have som paralells to the dilemmas Chamberlain faced.
This is disturbingly similar to recent events in easteen Europe
What about a British - French military alliance in Spring 1939. Has that betrayal been forgotten?
Brits fought two world wars to be a minority in their own country. LMAO
Why no mention of Danzig?
Faced with simultaneous challenges from Japan, Italy, and Germany, a Britain fatally weakened by the Great War had few realistic options. An alliance with the Soviets was repeatedly on offer, but few British politicians were interested. Neither were the Poles, without whom such an alliance wouldn't have been effective. The Americans could have made a difference, but were similarly unwilling to get involved. (According to Ian Kershaw, in May, 1940 the US were trying to cut a deal to negotiate an end to the war through Mussolini. So appeasement was not just a British phenomenon.) The Russians seem to have worried that while fearing Hitler, the British hoped he would turn against the Soviet Union, not go west. In this, they may have been correct.
Music too loud, can't hear commentary
Hindsight is always 20/20. After the bloodshed of WWI - the "war to end all wars" - there was no appetite in Britain for combat, nor in France.
And neither did Germany.
It was appeasement that allowed Germany to commence rearmament and appeasement that allowed Hitler to gain the initial successes that firmed up his power-base in Germany.
Arguing that British unreadiness is a justification for appeasement, is arguing that appeasement justified more appeasement. Germany was initially even more unready , and would have remained so had the military restrictions of Versailles been enforced. Choosing to ignore Germany’s treaty breaches and choosing to not be ready to respond were part of the appeasement policy and should not be separated.
Yes. Next.
To stop what had already happened in Russia?
Lore of Was peace with Hitler ever possible? Momentum 100
France was the other major player in this and had no stomach for a confrontation with Hitler either. A belligerent Soviet Union was seen as a greater threat and an “America First” isolationist USA was not interested in getting involved. It really was a foreign policy nightmare for the United Kingdom and I think Chamberlain navigated it as best he could in the circumstances.
I always thought appeasement was a huge mistake, until I spoke to an older guy who said, on the contrary, it bought Britain time to rearm, make strategic and tactical changes to infrastructure, and prepare for the war that would be coming soon....and he was right. Britain was not ready for conflict in 1938. Whether it should have been is another matter
Another amazing video. Did anyone else catch Stalin dropping a sword at 10:04?
Great archive footage of the Munich meeting
About as effective as the Maginot Line.
The Maginot Line, was actually on the whole quite effective. The relative weakness on the Belgian border was, like much of went wrong at that time the fault of the Belgians.
No it wasn’t
More pretty pictures then complete
The few places were the Germans attacked they went right through
More PR then reality
@@tisFrancesfault... agreed. It was a tough nut to crack and the Germans knew it. They largely avoided it, using their mobile army to simply bypass the line. The French soldiers assigned to the Maginot Line were surrounded and really had no choice but to surrender.
@@tisFrancesfault It was also a major fault of French high commands inability to adapt to using radios and ignoring their own recon forces. If they listened to recon and used radios, we might have a different road called the highway of death as every bomber in the Anglo-French force and artillery piece in range drop on that 1, single, road.
The French mobile divisons were decent, just like the British ones, the problem was just a really poor command force and out of date communications slowing them down dreadfully.
@@Chilly_Billy That was the point, force the Germans to avoid it and fight the mobile army of France and the UK in Belgium, the problem is the French doctrine of the time kind of well... yeah, as I said to the other commenter.
There were a lot of Britons who favored Germany, and also a lot of Germans (including Hitler) who favored Britain. Things could have turned out differently. Maybe one of the many assassination attempts on Hitler could have succeeded. Then maybe we would be saying that Chamberlain was right and Churchill was wrong.
How many of those assassination attempts were motivated be the belief that Hitler *was* dragging Germany into another war?
If Churchill had the job, the war would have been over in 1938