Read on Twitter
It is astonishing that a former Army Commander would be so ignorant of history or willing to ignore it to propagate a political point.
Short thread on Chamberlain and the condition and constraints of the British Empire during the time of the Munich Agreement. /1 https://twitter.com/rwac48/status/1274170437308571649
Short thread on Chamberlain and the condition and constraints of the British Empire during the time of the Munich Agreement. /1 https://twitter.com/rwac48/status/1274170437308571649
As part of the Munich Agreement, "...Britain and France acquiesced in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the transfer of its Sudeten region to Germany..." /2
Chamberlain's hopes were that "this humiliating sacrifice would satisfy Hitler's last major territorial demand and thus avert another catastrophic war..."
This action of his led to the popular perception of him being a coward. But was that really the case? /3
This action of his led to the popular perception of him being a coward. But was that really the case? /3
What's neglected is that in 1934 the British Cabinet concluded that it was "beyond the resources of this country to make proper provision in peace for defence of the British Empire against three major powers in three different theatres of war". /4
At that time Britain was under threat from three growing powers in three different theatres: Germany, Japan, and Italy.
The British government was also convinced that war with any one of them would provoke opportunistic "mad dog" acts by the other two. /5
The British government was also convinced that war with any one of them would provoke opportunistic "mad dog" acts by the other two. /5
"As the leader of a militarily weak and overstretched empire, such fears were crucial in shaping Chamberlain's strategy." /6
Chamberlain noted in 1938 that "In the absence of any powerful ally, and until our armaments are completed, we must adjust our foreign policy to our circumstances, and even bear with patience and good humour actions which we should like to treat in a very different fashion." /7
'His pragmatic response to this conundrum was a "double policy" of rearmament at a pace the economy could sustain, while simultaneously seeking better relations with the dictators...' /8
'...in the belief that only by redressing Germany's legitimate grievances would it be possible to remove the military threat - or failing that, to expose Hitler as an insatiable megalomaniac bent on world domination.' /9
The BBC notes that he told his Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, that 'the underlying strategy was to hope for the best while preparing for the worst.' /10
'Chamberlain faced a brutally simple choice at Munich. Was Britain prepared to threaten Germany with war on behalf of a state which it certainly could not save and which would probably never be resurrected in its existing form?' /11
'There was the absolute certainty that any attempt to do so would provoke a ruinous and probably un-winnable war which would slaughter millions, bring in Japan and Italy, destroy the British Empire, squander its wealth and undermine its position as a Great Power.' /12
It is easy to spit on Chamberlain's grave in order to propagate a political viewpoint but, as I mentioned earlier, it betrays a unidimensional understanding of history unbecoming of a learned senior officer, retired or otherwise. /13
I have quoted extensively from this article in the BBC which presents the topic in context and does a good job of explaining Chamberlain's actions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24300094
/end thread
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24300094
/end thread
Here's the raw data. The years highlighted correspond with Chamberlain's tenure as Prime Minister. Draw your own conclusions.
Linking to this fine thread that provides much needed context for those who believe Chamberlain's UK and France could have just 'invaded Germany to beat Hitler LOL' before the Munich Agreement and saved everyone a lot of trouble. https://twitter.com/SudsG4/status/1274336779131219968?s=20
