03 Jun 11
Originally posted by sh76I think you are underestimating the level of betrayal that Munich was not only to the Czechs, but the Soviets as well.
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact, Chamberlain was as angry at and tough on Hitler as anyone would have been.
I don't think Chamberlain was a wimp, I think he was a bad judge of character. He staked his and his country's future on the premise that Hitler could be pacified. After Hitler occupied Moravia and Bohemia, the scales finally fell from his eyes and ...[text shortened]... tee to Poland. This is not consistent with his viewing Hitler as an ally against the Soviets.
The Soviets put great stock in "collective security" agreements to reduce the German threat as did the French. The USSR had a pact with France to come to the Czechs aid IF the French did (this provision was necessary because pre-WWII the USSR did not border Czechoslovakia but French ally Rumania and Poland did). Not only did the French participate with Chamberlain in selling out the Czechs, but they did it without consulting Stalin. Understandably, he hit the roof and regarded any agreements with the West as utterly worthless. Also the British-French "neutrality" policy in Spain enabled the Fascists with German air power to win that war.
I think Chamberlain as an arch-conservative feared Communism more than the Nazis and was more willing to make deals with Hitler than Stalin. This was more than merely bad judgment of character; it was a common Western elite world view which almost caused the destruction of Western civilization.
03 Jun 11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
The term Western betrayal (Czech: zrada Západu) was coined after the Munich Conference (1938) when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede part of its area (the mostly German-populated Sudetenland) to Germany, losing the system of border fortifications and means of viable defence against the German invasion.
Sudetenland = West Bank?
03 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I also think that one needs to view Chamberlain's actions in the light of the cultural and historical situation in the 1930s, rather than with the benefit of a hindsight. For an Englishman who had lived an adult through the previous decades, the First World War seemed to be the very worst thing that had ever happened. The greater horrors of World War II must have been practically unimaginable. It's surely no surprise that "Peace at [almost] any price" should have seemed a more respectable slogan in 1938 than it has since 1945.
After Hitler broke the Munich Pact, Chamberlain was as angry at and tough on Hitler as anyone would have been.
I don't think Chamberlain was a wimp, I think he was a bad judge of character. He staked his and his country's future on the premise that Hitler could be pacified. After Hitler occupied Moravia and Bohemia, the scales finally fell from his eyes and tee to Poland. This is not consistent with his viewing Hitler as an ally against the Soviets.
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeA policy of "peace at almost any price ............ to be paid by somebody else" is hardly commendable no matter what era in history it is utilized in.
I also think that one needs to view Chamberlain's actions in the light of the cultural and historical situation in the 1930s, rather than with the benefit of a hindsight. For an Englishman who had lived an adult through the previous decades, the First World War seemed to be the very worst thing that had ever happened. The greater horrors of World Wa ...[text shortened]... ost] any price" should have seemed a more respectable slogan in 1938 than it has since 1945.
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right of course. But I didn't call it commendable. I only said it was understandable.
A policy of "peace at almost any price ............ to be paid by somebody else" is hardly commendable no matter what era in history it is utilized in.