So why did he say that he would have done exactly the same thing if he were PM?
There may have been some Conservatives like Churchill who would have preferred an even larger military buildup, but the Liberal and Labour parties consistently attacked Chamberlain as a warmonger, and resisted his military spending increases. There was little realistic chance of anyone who would have taken a harder line against Hitler becoming PM at that time.
Note that when Chamberlain resigned, he urged the King to appoint Churchill as his successor because he thought he could be trusted to hold the line against any proposed peace deal that left the Nazi regime intact. Possibly if he had not done so, Lord Halifax, who really did underestimate the Nazi threat, would have been appointed instead.
And if this author is claiming that the French were eager to fight for Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain held them back…that’s just flat out crazy. Nobody with any knowledge of the period would find that claim at all plausible.
Forty two assassination attempts.
And Canaris never changed his mind.
I blame him for giving away Czechoslovakia without even inviting them to the negotiation table. Future of the world? The Allies could have clobbered the Nazis in 1938.
Churchill spoke for 45 minutes to criticise the government for signing the agreement and, in general, for its policy of appeasement. The speech officially ended Churchill’s support for the government’s appeasement policy. Churchill had hoped for a reasonable settlement of the Sudetenland issue, but he was adamant that Britain must fight for the continued independence of Czechoslovakia. Among his criticisms of the government, Churchill said that the Soviet Union should have been invited to take part in the negotiations with Hitler.
Yes, afterwards, Churchill was nicer to Chamberlain.
Except GB didnt really step up war production that much in the 11 months, and Germany actually got stronger, with taking over the Czech tanks and the Skoda works.
Exactly. There was no major increase in defense expenditures, and as was said here-
When?
Read his speech right after the agreement.
No, but Chamberlain more or less killed Czech defenses. They could have fought the Nazis off.
So if Czechoslovakia had a bigger, better equipped army, why exactly was it Chamberlain’s fault they got occupied? You make it sound like the Czechs could have easily beaten Germany by themselves.
Have you read anything about the Munich Agreement?
An emergency meeting of the main European powers–not including Czechoslovakia, although their representatives were present in the town, nor the Soviet Union, an ally to France and Czechoslovakia–took place in Munich, on 29–30 September. An agreement was quickly reached on Adolf Hitler’s terms, and signed by the leaders of Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. The Czechoslovak mountainous borderland marked a natural border between the Czech state and the Germanic states since the early Middle Ages; it also presented a major natural obstacle to a possible German attack. Strengthened by border fortifications, the Sudetenland was of absolute strategic importance to Czechoslovakia. On 30 September, Czechoslovakia submitted to the combination of military pressure by Germany, Poland, and Hungary, and diplomatic pressure by Britain and France, and agreed to surrender territory to Germany following the Munich terms.
Chamberlain gave away the heavily defended territories of Czechoslovakia- without even consulting them. He handed over key border defenses and military industrial resources. Take a look at what the Sudetenland encompassed-
Also by Chamberlains craven surrender, he emboldened Hitler to invade Poland, thinking the UK wouldnt do anything about that other that whine and give up.
And sure, Britain was far away from Czechoslovakia- they couldnt do much in direct aid- but the same applied to Poland, yet GB declared war then.
How was he able to give all these things away? I thought they belonged to Czechoslovakia, and you appear to be making the claim that Czechoslovakia could easily have fought off the Germans by themselves. Why didn’t Czechoslovakia just do that, then?
Have you ever read anything about Hitler? He had planned to start a second world war from the start. No “emboldening” was needed to persuade him to invade his neighbors. More aggressive rearmament and earlier intervention by the West might possibly have made the war shorter than it was IRL, but there was always going to be a war once Hitler came to power.
On 30 September, Czechoslovakia submitted to the combination of military pressure by Germany, Poland, and Hungary, and diplomatic pressure by Britain and France, and agreed to surrender territory to Germany following the Munich terms.
The Allies promising theyd protect Czechoslovakia. And I never said " Czechoslovakia could easily have fought off the Germans by themselves". It would have been a nasty war, but Czechoslovakia could have prevailed. They had some solid natural defenses- which Chamberlain gave away. Mind you- Hitler wouldnt likely have invaded, since the fight would have been too tough, and the Generals would likely have staged a coup and assassinated Hitler had he tried.
Of course he would have invaded. Hitler both WANTED and EXPECTED Britain and France to declare war over Czechoslovakia. He was severely disappointed that Chamberlain didn’t allow that to happen.
I am referring to this autobiography of his time as Prime minister during WWII. Specifically Book 1 “The Gathering Storm”
He states that while he would have preferred that Chamberlain be more aggressive, he didn’t think, from intelligence reports, that Britain could win a war against Germany at that time.
That doesn’t seem to make sense. As you noted, the Cambridge five were Soviet agents. The Soviets wouldn’t have been trying to convince Britain to appease Germany - especially with offers to allow Germany to occupy territory in Eastern Europe. The Soviets would have liked to have seen Germany get into a war with Britain and France while the Soviets stood by watching on the sidelines.
Indeed. And more to the point, they weren’t in a position to be taken seriously as a source/conduit for information or misinformation about the highest levels of Nazi policymaking: Philby and Blunt weren’t employed in intelligence agencies until 1940, and in 1938 Maclean barely had his feet under the table as a junior diplomat in the Embassy in Paris. At the very least any such story coming from any of them would either have aroused suspicion - how would they have known anything about such matters?
I remember a TV interview with a senior FO official of the time who said the overtures weren’t taken seriously - if they meant to overthrow Hitler, why would they need Britain’s blessing? Why not just do it? And if they had tried and (very likely failed), then it would all be presented as a British plot. Moreover, AIUI they were also asking for Britain to agree to their replacement regime getting pretty well everything Hitler was asking for anyway.
That delay was the only reason the RAF had enough planes, and more importantly an industrial base building more, and a training scheme for pilots, to stand any chance in the Battle of Britain.
