Hard to imagine the weight of responsibility he shouldered. Most don't remember the absolute horrors of WWI and the almost absolute loss of a total generation of young men - which is why you can understand his reluctance to engage in another armed conflict. But then again, do you make the choice to go to war in an effort to prevent the further proliferation of a regime that will, no doubt, turn against you? It's like what Thomas Jefferson said about slavery - it's like holding a wolf by the ears; you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let it go.
This is missing some vital information. Chamberlain also increased funding to the military when he was chancellor and when he was PM. This greatly increased over his term in office. So he ramped up military spending while he was doing everything he could to avoid war. Germany was spending far greater sums on military spending, no-one in the Uk wanted another war either. The Spirfire wasn't available until 1938, the Hurricane only started being produced in 1937, most of our planes were WW1 style biplanes before they came along. On top of that, Britain was overstretched policing its empire and could not afford major rearmament. Its main ally, France, was seriously weakened and, unlike in the First World War, Commonwealth support was not a certainty. Many Britons also sympathised with Germany, which they felt had been treated unfairly following its defeat in 1918. Strangely, many people I ask think Churchill was Pm when war was declared. Chamberlain did everything he could to avoid war while building up our forces with both people and machinery. 1936 UK military spending 9 billion. 1937 UK military spending increases to 12 billion, Chamberlain becomes PM. 1938 UK military spending increases to 18 billion, 'peace in our time declared' 30 September. Spitfires roll off productions lines for the first time (first commissioned in 1931). 1939 UK military spending increases to 80 billion and war declared in September. 1940 UK military spending increases to 100 billion, Churchill becomes PM in May. In 1939 the USA was spending less than 10 billion on its military. I believe Chamberlain deserves far more credit than he gets. Germany had been outspending the other allies by huge margins. No-one wanted to go to war so close to WW1. The USA certainly weren't interested, they didn't even want to be part of the League of Nations. On top of that, his military advisers told him to wait. General Ismay advised the the British Cabinet on 20th September 1938, saying 'time is on our side', 'we need to catch up with Germany and their air power' and 'if were did come, it would be best to fight in 6-12 months time'. I don't see what options Chamberlain really had. He followed military advice. He tried to avoid war, a war that was unpopular in the UK. He prepared for war. He declared war when all else had failed. He stepped down when he realised he wasn't the right person to lead the country.
Eel Marwin I understand democracies need popular support to lead. Chamberlain did not have popular support for military action. His public position of security undermined public awareness of Hitler's threat. If Chamberlain is confident we will live in Peace, the public wants to believe also. Czechoslovakia & Poland deserved better allies. Why pursue a grand alliance for unity against aggression, then betray your allies? Churchill was right. Chamberlain was dishonorable. Waving a shyte piece of paper as if he had won. Too stupid to grasp his treaty with Hitler was as worthless as Czechoslovakia's treaty with Britain.
Dan Carlin made a good point about this, and it explains a lot about the decisions made leading up to and during World War Two. Nearly all the people involved politically and militarily at that time had been through World War One and the horrors of trench warfare in France and people like Chamberlain wanted to do anything they could to prevent a repeat.
That's not really a good excuse for doing exactly what was most likely to create a repeat of ww1. There wouldn't have been a ww2 if Britain would have honored their treaties. If they hadn't betrayed their allies on the assumption that appeasement would work, they would have easily defeated Hitler. Instead they waited for Hitler to build a military, while they did nothing.
@@onetwothree4148 There's a fair bit of evidence that Hitler wanted war in 1938. The Germans had been stirring up the Slovaks to separate and much of Czechoslovakia's military was in the East keeping the country under control. If Britain and France had stood up to Hitler at Munich thinking he was bluffing, think of how that might have played out. Germany invades Czechoslovakia, perhaps with Hungary rolling in to retake territory like USSR did in Eastern Poland. France mobilizes and then advances just a few miles into Germany and waits just like they did in the Saar offensive in 1939. Britain sends an expeditionary force, just much smaller as they had only 32,000 combat troops at the time (the budget cuts to the Military under the earlier Labour government were brutal). Germany conquers Czechoslovakia and all the Western Allies would do is blockade Germany. This "easily defeated Hitler" presumes the French Army was operationally and doctrinally capable of invading Germany in 1938. I think not, considering how they failed to do that in 1939 after more rearmament. And it ignores that in 1938 Britain had a much weaker RAF and a virtually non-existent army. Britain's military was primarily the Royal Navy and even it was much weaker. A lot of resources were put into building destroyers in 1938-1939 expecting they would be needed to escort merchant shipping to protect against u-boats. The Royal Navy could blockade Germany as they did from 1939 forward, but that would have been the limit.
@@iansneddon2956 even in the worst case scenario, that's a lot better than what happened. Instead Europe was in denial still making excuses for Hitler.
And therein lies part of the problem: Britain’s political leaders desperately wanted to avoid war at any cost, while Germany’s political leaders desperately wanted a war at any cost
@@carlireland5049 I am not sure if "at any cost" is the right word. Britain wasn't going to surrender any territory or any colonial possessions. I think the biggest problem was allowing the military cuts in the first place, which put Britain in a weak position. And once the military spending was out of the Budget, it was harder for successive governments (Baldwin and Chamberlain) to restore it. USA gets criticized for spending so much more than many other nations combined on their military, but the Military power USA has translates to diplomatic power (along with the economic power of USA). USA can make threats now, not having to scramble to rebuild a military to threaten later). Britain essentially undermined her future foreign policy through the cuts in the early 1930s. Chamberlain tried to negotiate but Hitler wouldn't. He made demands and did not back down. Chamberlain knew Britain wasn't ready with uncertainty of how reliable France might be, so he capitulated. He then went on attempting to buy the sustainable peace that he wanted (assuming a multi-nation alliance might have kept Hitler in check). But Munich undermined that. France was on board once Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and was a more present military threat, but Mussolini wouldn't rejoin the alliance. Hard to blame him after what he saw at Munich. Poland joined, but didn't have much choice (would accept any alliance that might help deter German aggression). But the strength of the alliance is only as strong as the intentions behind it. And Britain and France appeared weak after Munich. Nazi Germany was a corrupt regime running a sham of an economy and needed to plunder the East to pay for it - which as much as Hitler's dreams and ambitions made war inevitable. But the prior display of weakness made it easier. I don't think Chamberlain had much choice at Munich, but Munich made it harder for other nations to trust Britain's ability to stand up.And key to the alliance working was Germany believing in the alliance. I understand Hitler was surprised that after Chamberlain's government made an ultimatum to Germany to withdraw from Poland, and then followed through by declaring war. Again, the true lesson here for nations is never let yourself get weak. If you want peace, prepare for war, as the saying goes.
I absolutely LOVED this -a masterly condensed analysis, giving Chaimberline the credit he deserves, where he deserves it. I wouldn't go as far as my mother who always insisted that he sacrificed his honour to give Britain time to arm as he was not aware of the real state of Germany's forces, but there was a tiny smidgin of truth buried in there. Thank you.
Nonsense, The Germany had the same time and stronger Industry to arm the Germany, and also received Czechoslovak arms, military industry and skilled working force. CZ tank helped significantly to the defeat of Poland and France. Chamberlain was a traitor who helped Hitler to start the WW II. in sept. 1939. Without Cz. arms it was impossible for Germany., Remember the words of Churchill. Chamberlain is a shame of England .
I think it ridiculous that Chamberlain is saddled with the failure of, what was then, the developed world. I think most of the world leaders of the time were thankful he died, had he lived they could not have used him as a scapegoat.
And then he takes Czechoslovak tanks and uses them to roll through Poland and later France in same month you step down as premier. I can't help myself but i see some kind of twisted justice in that part.
Luckily Britain got rid of Chamberlain and declared war on Germany for Invading West Poland. At the end of the war Britain went bankrupt became a distant 3rd rate power and Stalin took all of Poland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe instead of Germany.
SheepDog OathKeeper- They used Poland as a sacrificial sheep, they did nothing during the phony war. And they definitely turned their backs on Poland when the Soviets also attacked it
SheepDog OathKeeper- Aside from never baiting Poland into conflict with lies of alliances? Accept Hitler’s offer to return all his Western European conquests in exchange for peace, so that he could focus on the Soviet Union.
The Hurricanes were outmatched by the Bf 109s though. Having the Spitfires deal with the fighters (generally) whilst the Hurricanes dealt with the bombers (generally) was prudent strategy. Of course, both relied on Britain's fine radar and the excellently run fighter command. Without those both the fighters' task would've have been far more difficult to accomplish, if not impossible.
I always feel Chamberlain got given the most brownests end of the sticks in history. It was his predecessor, Baldwin, whom largely made Britain sluggish in the armament race to 1939. As a result, he knew he wasn't in a position to put the UK in a war, both politically, logistically and financially. But, alas, he is remembered as the bloke who gave the most vile regime in Western Europe slack.
Slack was not declaring war on Stalin who invaded east Poland 2 weeks after Germany and giving Stalin all of Poland , Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe instead of Germany after the war.
In the book MUNICH by Robert Harris, he had Chamberlain be fully aware of Hitler's intentions but playing for time so Britain could re-arm. Since most of the book is fiction I have no idea if that's true or not, but as Chamberlain was a good person I'd like to believe it.
@@grahampowelljr1 Chamberlain handled himself about as well as your average prime minister would have It was just bad optics travelling to Munich and shaking Hitlers hand. If that video didn't exist history would have been much kinder.
@@Fray2221 The politicians and the academics and the media are the cowards, no trial for Chamberlain because he would win - the evidence neglected by the shameful academic world, confusing the public to assume there is none, and thereby inviting a myriad of ignorant theories from the public, mostly hostile.
He took up the slack, and there is evidence he meant to - indeed, what else could he do but his best, and one day the world will learn this, if mankind manages to save the human race from senseless extinction.
@@skyboy4341 Churchill definitely didn't trust Stalin. He was just willing to work with him until Germany was defeated. FDR however did more to try and make Stalin a true ally and believed that he could be trusted.
@@skyboy4341 "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - Winston Churchill Churchill knew what he was dealing with.
Unfortunately only the dead have seen an end to war. As long as there are people, there will be someone who is willing to resort to violence to get their way. Clubs, spears, swards, guns, aircraft, tanks, and nuclear bombs are only the weapons, but human nature is the cause. Even the "peace loving Hollywood progressives" are talking about violence to reverse their election loss of 2016. And the beat goes on, (Sonny & Cher 1967).
Thanks Wikipedia: "In 1949, Xerox Corporation introduced the first xerographic copier called the Model A. Defeating computer leader IBM, Xerox became so successful that, in North America, photocopying came to be popularly known as "xeroxing"." So no, they didn't have photocopiers in 1938.
My 90-year-old great grandma likes to talk about history of Czechoslovakia (since she's lived through most of it) and one day she started about WW2. I was kinda surprised that she didn't really speak about Germany or Hitler, because, in her own words, to a kid that she was the war didn't really matter that much. But at one moment she got REALLY angry and it was when I mentioned Munich agreement and Chamberlain. Though in 1938 it was Germany who invaded us, she blamed almost solely UK and France, because they were supposed to be on our side and betrayed us. She had to leave her hometown Lovosice, which was in Sudetenland, because her father, being a legionary in WW1, refused to live in Germany. She never forgave UK and France. Even today when you mentiona the name "Chamberlain" in Czech republic, the first thing that comes to mind of at least a bit educated people is: that as*hole. And I'm inclined to agree with them.
@ Jamie Cameron... RIght! Who's interested in a bunch of boring old facts (yawn!)... or in that stupid business about what "truth" means or -- booorrrriinng! -- how one might recognize and promote it (who cares!)... or in *standards* for responsible, fruitful reporting (too much trouble -- move on!)... or in anyone alive who still cares about the enormous sacrifices the men in Hawker Hurricanes made for their country, for liberty, and for a vulnerable population of men, women, and children facing tens of thousands of looming existential crises (yada, yada, yada... who cares about a bunch of dead white guys with stiff upper lips?!)? What do you do with that empty cranium of yours, Jamie... to make it at least somewhat useful, some of the time? ...Store your weed and vaping supplies inside it?
@@frederickj.7136 That's probably the lamest attempt at sarcasm I've ever witnessed, I had that shiver of cringe reading that, you know the feeling? No of course you dont as you clearly have no understanding of self awareness if you feel the need to correct everybody on irrelevant details that have nothing to do with the main point. Do you push your glasses up your nose and say 'err I think you'll find it's you and I, not me and you' which results in a rush of euphoria that you've corrected someone thus proving you intellectual superiority as nothing else in your life gives you the same satisfaction? I bet you do
Churchill hated the guy, that much is clear,, but his words on Chamberlain after his death are quite telling. Most of his violent political attacks where for the public, the stage.. in parliament he did not vote against Chamberlain.
Maybe in a different time he would have been a great PM but the circumstances of the time weren’t in his favor. Churchill was the best possible man to be PM against Hitler. If there had been no Hitler then there would have been no Churchill.
Great vid !! I just got done with a book about the great Depression. Your right Simon,its easy in hindsight to judge peoples actions,especially if we wernt there nor lived during that time. Ive had many heated discussions about historical events involving this very point. Im sharing this vid !!
Inconceivable - not inconceptably (not a word). Fearful - not fearsome (you are fearful of something. Fearsome implies fierceness and something to be feared).
Chamberlain did not at all sacrifice all of Chekovslavakia to Germany. He only allowed for t parts that were largely German. Germany went ahead and took over t rest w/o Chamberlain's permission.
in fact he did allow for the german occupation because of the munich agreement. If he didn't want to appease germans, there wouldn't have been the sudetenland secession and we would have retained our border fortification, industry and territory and hitler and wehrmacht most probably wouldn't dare invade.
@@ZlejChleba I know that is how it turned out. I was just knitpicking that he only sacrificed the Sudatenland and not "all" of Czechoslovakia. As I understand it, when Hitler violated the Munich agreement and invaded t rest of t country is what finally did it for Chamberlain and from then on he knew Hitler could not be trusted and would have to be stopped. Apparently befor that he thought Hitler was a somewhat reasonable head of state like himself.
Good to go a bit deeper into Munich crises when during 1938 British diplomats bullied constantly Czechoslovakia into submission. The only democracy in Central Europe was forced not to defend itself under threats of being labeled as the perpetrator of war... And by the way Sudetenland was never part of Germany. So giving these Germans back to Germany does not make any sense.
IKR, and the Czechs who did live in the Sudetenlands lived there for twice as long as the Germans, who were invited there in the 13th century by Ottakar Druhý. It was historic Czech territory for over 1500 years!!! 🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿
Appeasement more than any singular issue is the root cause of WWI. Giving into the demands by a bully only encourages the bully. Plus it serves as inspiration for other bullies.
Sir, you are completely right. Germany could not defeat Czechoslovak, French and British armies . Imagine the strength of Cz. army, in tanks, planes, armoured trains, arms and spirit of cz. soldiers ready to fight. In 8 weeks Germany would be defeated. Opposite, with czechoslovak weapons, Hitler defeated Poland and France. Chamberlain, this noble gentleman could not be so stupid o be a smarmy bugger. He had to plan something else. But I dont know what. But he miscalculated.
Very interesting and entertaining, Simon. I very much enjoy your videos on different people, as they are suitable to listen to while I do chores! I can learn something and clean up my home at the same time, which is pretty cool! Keep up the good work!
Regardless of what one thinks of Chamberlain's policy, history does show once again that Politics of Appeasement when dealing with a dictator does not work.
Good video, just a quick correction: The British forces were not trying to "retake Norway". Churchill and the French planned for action against Norway to bring Sweden into the Allied sphere while also providing a means to supply Finland in its war with the Soviet Union. It was the Royal Navy's seizing of the German supply ship Altmark with its POW load in Norwegian territorial waters that made action inevitable. The allies agreed to mine Norwegian waters to provoke a German attack on Norway for 5th April, however disagreements over mining the Rhine delayed the mining until 8th April, by which time the Germans beat the Allies to it.
Very cool to hear a ding and see this as the new video! I didn't learn much about Chamberlain beyond the basic "he's a coward" summary. Very satisfying to learn a little bit about some fascinating topic with Simon and the team at Biographics. Keep it up!
Churchill had a way with words. He called Chamberlain "a sheep in sheep's clothing." Churchill also said about Hitler. "How do you appease a crocodile?" He was right about Hitler and Chamberlain was wrong.
Thank you so much for these well-researched videos. They're incredibly efficient, interesting and well-edited. The writers and Simon make a great team.
Simon mentioned one reason Chamberlain redeemed himself, by building up air defences after Munich. But he also gained sympathy from the public by willing to do shuttle diplomacy during Munich, in sincerely working for peace.
Disco Saturn Loves To Do Subtitled Comedies and Other Things 24/7 and Peas is close to please , which appeasement really meant “Please don’t start another WW”
Tatra was also a Czechoslovakian company. They built some lovely rear-engined cars with air cooled engines. It is rumored that Ferdinand Porsche had seen these cars and that they led to the design of the VW beetle.
I feel like that a lot of people ignore the moral reasons for trying to avoid a second world war. At the time England still vividly remembered the suffering caused by the first world war, and the idea of going to war with Germany again just 20 years later was not very popular among the British public. It's easy to look back with hindsight and say that appeasement was a mistake (because it was), however at the time events where taking place it was less obvious what the correct cause of action was, and most people where desperate to avoid another huge European war.
1:25 - Chapter 1 - From birmingham to the bahamas 3:05 - Chapter 2 - Going into public service 5:45 - Chapter 3 - The sudentenland crisis 10:20 - Mid roll ads 12:20 - Chapter 4 - Did chamberlain take the right decision ? 14:25 - Chapter 5 - A brief history of appeasement 14:40 - Round 1 - Japanese invasion of manchuria 15:25 - Round 2 - Failed anschluss attempt 16:00 - Round 3 - Italy invades ethiopia 16:40 - Round 4 - Hitler retakes the rhineland 17:10 - Round 6 - Japan invades the rest of china 17:40 - Round 7 - The successful anschluss 18:25 - BONUS Round - The spanish civil war 18:55 - Chapter 6 - From appeasement to WWII 20:20 - Chapter 7 - Final words
I've been asking for it for a while, and I'll ask again, Biographics needs to a Margaret and Denis Thatcher biography, much like the Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII one.
Google, when did photocopying begin? "Oct. 22, 1938 Inventor Chester Carlson used static electricity created with a handkerchief, light and dry powder to make the first copy on Oct. 22, 1938. The copier didn't get on to the market until 1959, more than 20 years later. When it did, the Xerox machine prompted a dramatic change in the workplace"
With Skoda being a part of Volkswagen (the company that built the "KdF Wagen" = Strength through Joy Car, a.k.a. the Beetle), modern Germany ironically succeeded, again.
Chamberlains biggest mistake was that he didn´t went with Stalins idea of renewing the Entente as a response to the German demands on Czechoslovakia. If France, Britain and the USSR had made clear that they would respond againstt German aggression the entire war could have been avoided. As an additional note the cowardice of the western allies was was made Stalin choose the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Both he and Hitler where stunned when Britain and France suddenly grew a pair and declared war after the Germans invaded Poland.
Czechoslovakia made some of the best weapons in the world at the time. Most of the Blitzkrieg was done with Czech built tanks as the German Panzer I and II's were pathetic. Czech machine guns and other small arms were some of the best in the world.
FYI, you're one of the 5 youtube channels I'm subscribed to. I never miss a video. Not even the ones about pioneering aviators! Keep being awesome. And thank you for saying Škoda and not Skoda, as way too many people and even motoring journalists wrongfully do.
While a shameful sell out of the Czechs, most in the UK supported Chamberlain in not going to war to prevent Germans reuniting with Germany and he was hailed as a statesman at the time.
Churchill was truly an arshloch but he at least did not sell out the entire world. Chamberlain and appeasement were the parents of political correctness and have cause nothing but the demise of "truth in our time".
Considering he won WWII, I would agree. Winston Churchill was a derivative ads but he knew What he was doing. Truman droppedxthw Bomb but if Churchill hadn't been a Bulldog, HItler would have invaded.the UK.
Darksydesamy that would be true if Churchill fixed every consequence of the appeasement. One example being that Britain was completely bankrupt after the war
@@nicolaiitchenko7610 Did not sell out the world? All that happened was at the end of the war was Stalin, Hitler's clone twin brother took all of Poland Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe instead of Germany, and Britain went broke and lost it's seat as a world power.
There was a movie made at that time entitled Things To Come. Its predictions proved comical when seen through the eyes of those of us who look back past the actual events of the times it predicted, but it clearly demonstrates the total horror of war that the majority of the British people had at the time. The common consensus was that another war like WWI with the use of airplanes to deliver massive poison gas attacks and years of futile trench warfare would destroy civilization and leave the world as a collection of small fiefdoms headed by local warlords. Today we often fail to realize that the male population of both Britain and France had been decimated by the war, thousands more suffered crippling injuries, not to mention those who went through life with what we now call PTSD, or those whose private members had been dissolved away by mustard gas. Today Winston Churchill is considered a hero, But, at the time, many regarded him as a raving lunatic for even thinking of repeating the horror of the great war. The fear of war at the time was so great that any hope of preventing it was seized like a straw in the hand of a drowning man. Chamberlain was considered a hero because he was believed to have averted a major war. What neither he and the British people didn't know was that Hitler didn't share their fear. The great nightmare for most soldiers had been the greatest time of his life and he wanted to return to it. The hatred of Hitler during the war years was partly caused by the realization that his plan from the beginning had been to restart the great war.
Chamberlain was the second 20th Century Prime Minister of the UK who could claim North American citizenship, his mother was a US citizen. Bonar-Law was Canadian, Churchill, Anthony Eden, and Harold Macmillan had mothers who where US citizens. John Major's father was a US citizen.
Both my cell provider and my local wifi provider have labeled me as an "overuser" my opinion is that the service providers should provide adequate service.
I realize I’m biased here *(look at my profile picture)* but you’re dead wrong here Simon. Appeasement was terrible policy because it never should have been necessary. Churchill has said since 1931 that Hitler was expansionist and that Britain should rearm for war. If Chamberlain had listened to him there would’ve been no need to appease. Chamberlain _was_ at fault.
Seems similar to Antebellum politics. WWII, like the Civil War in the USA. Unavoidable But still a bit of me can't help but respect the guy for putting it off for so long.
I can't agree with the popular assessment of Chamberlain. When you dive into the gritty details of everything he did to avoid war between nations that were hardly prepared for it, you begin to get a better picture of just how effectively he managed to delay the start of the war. It could be said that he merely postponed the inevitable but the simple fact is that Britain wasn't ready to dive into a full scale conflict yet. Keeping Hitler at arm's length, as Chamberlain essentially did, may very well have saved a lot of lives and preserved British sovereignty which in turn guaranteed a launching pad for the invasion of Western Europe. I wouldn't go so far as to call Chamberlain an unsung hero but it can certainly be said that as historical figures of the 20th century are concerned, we have failed to understand and appreciate this man's achievements.
Think It's Slowly changing as we get further from the war and people need to actually learn about it not be told or live through it. Can see why he got such a bad rap when the war broke out as he had to be demonised in a way and that's stuck and been passed on.
I think that exactly the opposite is true. Germany was not ready for war in 1938. Wehrmacht only started conscription in 1935 and there was not enough trained soldiers. That extra year and all of Czechoslovakia armament industry handed to Hitler on silver platter is what made WW2 inevitable.
On an unrelated note, if I have to have commercials then I prefer this style. The internal segue is less disruptive than the automated interruptions everyone else uses.
This problem goes back to Versailles...Why they stuffed Germans,Poles and Hungarians into Czechoslovakia is beyond all reason..That country was for Czechs and Slovenes..That area used to be Bohemia - part of the Holy Roman Empire. They look German,speak German and were/are culturally German.. They may as well have given the area of German Bohemia to Ireland to make up for Northern Ireland.
Problem 1: The Sudetenland was the most heavily fortified part of the country and - as anyone who has traveled through there knows - is steep and difficult for an army to traverse. This area became strategically unimportant (not irrelevant) after the _Anschluss_ because it opened up the whole south eastern border, a place the Czechoslovaks didn't envisage as a potential invasion point. And in contrast to the Sudetenland, it was largely a flat plane and much easier for an army to traverse.. You are correct that Hitler didn't care much about Henlein and Henlein knew it. When someone suggested to him that he go and talk it over with Hitler, he told them he didn't have easy access. At least the man knew where he stood. Problem 2: The alliances depended on who was prosecuting an aggressive war. France had an agreement that she would come to the assistance of Czechoslovakia _if Czechoslovakia was attacked._ The Soviet treaty was much the same. But if France attacked Germany to defend Czechoslovakia (well, you would, wouldn't you?), that would constitute an aggressive war and all bets were probably off. That treaty was largely a sham anyway, since the French had been signing treaties with all and sundry in the interwar years, mostly at the expense of the Soviet Union and in many ways, to get back at their own domestic left wing. Problem 3: Britain had no treaty obligations to any of these parties. Chamberlain was nagged into getting involved by the French - mostly Georges Bonnet - and this would be to his own personal cost. It was, in fact, the single biggest mistake he made. The second 'peace in our time' speech was also a mistake. Problem 3: This was lot more complicated than it first appears and there is little encouragement for anyone to bother to understand it. First of all, Chamberlain was a very experienced politician and negotiator. This was established earlier in the video. Hitler was a total noob who had never had to negotiate anything more than his pay packet. When they met at the _Berghof,_ Chamberlain, on the diplomatic principle that you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to, asked Hitler what else he wanted besides the Sudetenland. This left the Fuehrer a little flummoxed because he had expected to be allowed to harangue Chamberlain about the unfair treatment of Sudeten Germans (and Germans generally). Benes was a whole 'nother story. The Czechoslovakian president didn't like the Sudeten Germans and didn't really want them because he thought them troublesome. That said, he wasn't ready to carve off the Sudetenland - or any parts of it - just yet. In May, 1938, the Czechs started their own provocations in the Sudetenland, precipitating something of a crisis which the British tried to resolve through Lord Runicman and the British Mission. Benes, rather than using the opportunity to resolve the problem, spent too much time politicking. He would agree with you one day and disagree with you the next to change the deal. He'd sign something one day and come back the next with a suggestion for changes. He'd tell one person one thing and another person something quite different. Benes was addicted to making deals. He was, in the words of his contemporaries,' too clever by half'. It was this indecision that left him with no choice but to follow French and British military advice. The other thing that's not known is that the Czechoslovakian government was far from united on the matter. The Prime Minister, Milan Hodza, was a Slovak and the leader of the Agrarian party - the largest in the parliament. They didn't care one way or the other what happened to the Sudeten Germans. They saw them as more trouble than they were worth. TBC
I think Chamberlain's heart was in the right place. He didn't have the benefit of hindsight and no one could have predicted how far Hitler intended to go. Other than the defense of England, England's performance during the war was pretty lack-luster anyways.
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.
Your knowledge is very poor. The Polish invaded a very small border area that Czechs had taken by force during war previously so the Polish saw it as taking back stolen territory. This happened while Germany captured the Sudeten lands and Poland saw the opportunity to take it back. There were only around 150 fatalities from the Polish action so it was very minor. However this was a tactical error as it gave Hitler an excuse to invade Poland which resulted in a lot more than just 150 casualties but 800,000 casualties so you really can't related these 2 events. Poland made a mistake but it was a minor border land grab overall but the German invasion of Poland had no reason and resulted in mass deaths with over 5 million killed mostly civilians and Jews who were murdered by Germany just becasue of their Race was not German Arian, it does not get much worse in terms of War Crime than that..
@@drscopeify Most of the deaths were due to the illegal Allied starvation blockade, and aerial bombing which prevented supplies from reaching the forced labour camps. See why Churchill condemned fascist Poland for invading Czechoslovakia in 1938-39.
@@MarkHarrison733 It was not a land grab the land was taken away from Poland in WW1 and they reclaimed the land but this is a very small piece of land just on the border and almost no people were impacted very few people were injured or killed. The German/Russian invasion of Poland killed some 70,000 people and heavily damaged many Polish cities. So it's a strange excuse.
"What's this? Hitler wants us to hand over the only defensible territory of a state with massive industrial potential and fully eqquiped professional army? I see no harm in it." N. Chamberlain, 1938... allegedly.
Chamberlain essentially did the same thing that Stalin did; to stave off war with Germany for as long as possible in order to re-arm. Chamberlain was just less cynical about it, which looks bad in him.
Thank you. I don't particularly like Chamberlain, but he wasn't blind to the Nazi threat. He knew war was coming. He wanted to buy more time for Britain and France to build up their militaries.
It is extremely important to take into account the military budget cuts that needed to be overcome from the interwar years. I do not think that Chamberlain necessarily was just buying time for an inevitable war. He seriously thought war could be avoided. But England was not ready for war in 1937 or 1938.
