Another excellent lecture. Interesting, very well presented and logically researched. Thank you.

A significant omission in Professor Bogdanor's presentation is the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 which breached the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. This agreement was made without consulting France or Italy beforehand and allowed Germany to build submarines.

Could England allow any one nation to dominate Europe as that nation would than be in position to conquer England? The reply since 1588 has been NO

In "Yes Minister" Sir Humphey Appleby says that the excuse for Munich agreement was that "it occurred before certain important facts were known and couldn't happen again". "What important facts?" asks the Minister. Sir Humphrey replies "That Hitler wanted to conquer Europe".

I'm surprised that Halifax stood up to Hitler. He was reputed to be a weak sister, an apologist.

People forget that Adolf Hitler being Austrian and not Prussian like most of the General Staff did not have a deep-seated hatred for Poland and the Poles which the generals had, Hitler had the old Austrian poor attitude towards the Czechs and memories of how the Czechs declared independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the end of fighting in the First World War. This explains why Hitler shocked his generals by negotiating a 10-year non-aggression pact with Poland shortly after assuming office, and attempts to create an alliance with Poland to attack the Soviet Union together, and also why he wanted to erase Czechoslovakia, which had already become Czecho-Slovakia, the hyphen state, as more and more Slovaks wanted independence. The Poles were rewarded with Czech territory after Munich.

I think the good Professor lets Chamberlain off much too easily.

@allegra0

5 жыл бұрын

Yes

@robertewing3114

3 жыл бұрын

Let off for what? The professor says Chamberlain said the piece of paper guaranteed peace, a somewhat typical academic slur generated from the decision to call the policy appeasement, which is not what the policy makers called it. His lecture is nothing the slur that some would deliver, but it is rather the official line of the British establishment, and the myth that Chamberlain failed as a statesman is that story, the cultural, hot historical, truth. Note all the references to Churchill, and note the words opposition to appeasement, the opposition to what? Chamberlains judgment - statesmanship. Subjective opinion was so confused, and 75 years later the confusion continues. He says who voted Chamberlain, this is perfect lecture to learn nothing.

French military flag: White cross on a white background.

@th8257

5 жыл бұрын

That's an absolutely disgusting, and wrong, thing to say. France gave a great deal more than we did in both wars. As the professor points out, all we offered to do in WW2 was give help with some planes and a tiny number of soldiers. The UK was quite content to let France fight the UK's battles for it

This professor is giving excuses to his liberal party.

The usual British propaganda.

Clap-trap! Read Butterfly in the Well and learn that Chamberlain was a statesman, not an academic.