Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2022 17:19:51 GMT
It is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2022 19:45:13 GMT
People who say we shouldn't change the prime minister because we are in the middle of a crisis should reflect on what the consequences would have been if Chamberlain had not be ousted during the biggest crisis in Britain's history, in May 1940. It's absolute nonsense. with your post as it stands I would agree vis a vis Chamberlin and Churchill.
However on the lines of my post in the other thread on this, getting rid of someone who is a prat in his personal behaviour
but seems to be succeeding in dealing with an ongoing international crisis just to replace them with one from a selection of ..... shall we say a less than glittering assemblage.......... *
In 1940 we were in a crisis because (partly at least) the failures of Chamberlin and we needed a bull headed stuborn opinionated bastard and fortunately there was one to hand.
* (actually I think there is one who might make a decent PM but I don't know enough about them to really comment)
History has given Chamberlain a bum rap. The situation in Europe from 1936-ish onwards was that it was generally accepted war was inevitable. It was also generally recognised that Britain was in no way ready for a war, and that there was no possibility whatsoever of military intervention beyond the French border. Some historians contend that Chamberlain was doing the only thing possible until September 1939 - playing for time. Consider recent events. Just as before, even as Russia was massing troops along Ukraine's border, every country hoped and prayed it wouldn't happen right up until 'the balloon went up'. Absolutely nobody imagined that France would be toppled as swiftly as it was - not even Hitler. Until then, the notion was that any war would be fought in France with the most numerous and modern military in Europe on-side. When the front arrived at Calais, the possibilities of 'what next' had been reduced to a binary decision. Only megalomaniacs opt for a fight when other choices still exist.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 9, 2022 22:37:30 GMT
with your post as it stands I would agree vis a vis Chamberlin and Churchill.
However on the lines of my post in the other thread on this, getting rid of someone who is a prat in his personal behaviour
but seems to be succeeding in dealing with an ongoing international crisis just to replace them with one from a selection of ..... shall we say a less than glittering assemblage.......... *
In 1940 we were in a crisis because (partly at least) the failures of Chamberlin and we needed a bull headed stuborn opinionated bastard and fortunately there was one to hand.
* (actually I think there is one who might make a decent PM but I don't know enough about them to really comment)
History has given Chamberlain a bum rap. The situation in Europe from 1936-ish onwards was that it was generally accepted war was inevitable. It was also generally recognised that Britain was in no way ready for a war, and that there was no possibility whatsoever of military intervention beyond the French border. Some historians contend that Chamberlain was doing the only thing possible until September 1939 - playing for time. Consider recent events. Just as before, even as Russia was massing troops along Ukraine's border, every country hoped and prayed it wouldn't happen right up until 'the balloon went up'. Absolutely nobody imagined that France would be toppled as swiftly as it was - not even Hitler. Until then, the notion was that any war would be fought in France with the most numerous and modern military in Europe on-side. When the front arrived at Calais, the possibilities of 'what next' had been reduced to a binary decision. Only megalomaniacs opt for a fight when other choices still exist. I did say (partly at least) and yes the military situation, although accepting Hitlers word and allowing the absorbtion of the Sudetenland increased Hitlers prestige and military strength the opinion of General Ismay was that it was worth it for the extra time it gave Britain to prepare. Baldwin did very little to prepare for Hitler when the first signs of him being a problem and Chamberlai was a member of that government when Hitler denounced the Lucarno agreement taking the Rhineland. This was a red flag warning which was ignored, Chamberlain although singled out to take all the blame by many, as a member of Baldwin's government and then Prime Minister himself deserves a good bit of the blame for the lack of preparedness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2022 0:29:19 GMT
Locarno.
Again, Britain was not the sole arbiter of policy with regard to Germany. The Locarno Treaty, signed by all west-European nations including Germany (which guaranteed Germany's borders) is proof of this. In fact it only became able to take military decisions without reference after the fall of France, which is the de-facto point at which the bloody-useless League of Nations ceased to have any relevance.
Why didn't France (or anybody else) advance into the Rhineland (it became known after the war that Hitler would have immediately retreated at that point had there been any resistance)?. Because France was governed by old men whose doctrine favoured a defensive stance (hence the Maginot Line) and the bottom-line was that French troops would have done the fighting (and the dying had there been any military exchange).
Britain could not dictate policy to the French then any more than now. And Britain was preparing. Not only was the entire military in the process of re-arming, but the infrastructure which supported it was quite mature in many aspects when war was declared.
Chamberlain was a political fall-guy. Every decade needs at least one.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 10, 2022 5:49:51 GMT
Your post makes a lot of sense and I had not looked at some of those points that way before ..... but .....( )
it would be interesting to know how much pressure the Baldwin government was putting on the other signatories (if any) to confront Hitler
incidentally I came across a saying the other day, which seems very apropriate for modern times ..... "history may not repeat ..... but it sure as hell rhymes"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2022 5:54:52 GMT
it would be interesting to know how much pressure the Baldwin government was putting on the other signatories (if any) to confront Hitler
I'll lay odds someone got a PhD for answering that very question.
|
|