I hope you enjoy this video on Chamberlain and the logic of appeasement. My original conception for this video was to do a sort of for and against type of narrative - presenting the arguments both in favour and against appeasement. The script simply became too long and convoluted however, once I actually began writing it. Hence I've instead decided to do two videos: One where the thesis is (tentatively) sympathetic to Chamberlain and Appeasement. The next video will be (tentatively) sympathetic to Churchill and the anti-Appeasement argument. This is not meant to be a full-throated defence of Appeasement and Chamberlain, like say the work of John Charmley is. But I think it offers an interesting thesis & perspective on Chamberlain and the reasoning behind the policy he pursued. Your rebuttals/ additions to any of the points are of course welcome and encouraged. Apologies for the delay in this. As I say it is my fault for the initial idea being too complicated, and requiring me to rewrite it. Additionally, I have had quite a bit of trouble with KZread over the last week regarding the videos mention of the leaders of Germany in this period. Consequently any mention of them by name has been wiped, though I'm sure you'll know who I'm talking about when I say 'Berlin' etc. Sorry if the audio is a bit variable in places, obviously there has been a few re-records. Thank you again for watching.

@Hillbilly001

Жыл бұрын

No worries then. I always peruse the comments, but this is the first time I've seen a creator explain the "why" of a vid. 2 parts? I look forward to watching the second. Cheers from Tennessee

@QuizmasterLaw

Жыл бұрын

Niall Ferguson is wrong: here's why.

@QuizmasterLaw

Жыл бұрын

this is VERY well done! I really hope TIK sees this and does a reaction video!!

@Young.Supernovas

Жыл бұрын

KZread forced you to censor this? That's absurd!

@QuizmasterLaw

Жыл бұрын

@@Young.Supernovas *anything* referring to the bad man with a small mustache gets corporate censored yeah

WW2 videos are a dime a dozen on KZread, but this is anything but common quality. Your arguments are rational, flowing, multifaceted, and comprehensive in a way few others are. This is excellent work.

I believe that Neville Chamberlain was a good man in an impossible position. If you listen to his declaration of war speech (on Wikipedia), it's easy to see that all he ever wanted was peace. He was not a fool nor was he weak.

@robtoe10

Жыл бұрын

A decent man can make mistakes - lord knows Churchill is lauded as the competent counterfoil to Chamberlain, yet Churchill had one or two mishaps under his belt too. I think Chamberlain redeemed himself by declaring war on Germany, changing his foreign policy once he saw it wasn't working.

@emmisysquire9684

Жыл бұрын

He wasn’t weak, but to say he wasn’t foolish for trusting Hitler is pushing it

@ChevyChase301

Жыл бұрын

Good men don’t sell countries without hearing what they have to say. British imperial pride tainted any morals he had

@DarthFhenix55

Жыл бұрын

@@ChevyChase301 Being fair, he wasn't neither the first nor the last man who did that. Just see what happened with the east block in the cold war.

@ChevyChase301

Жыл бұрын

@@DarthFhenix55 look at the suez crisis. The British were barely more moral then the Germans when it came to foreign policy at this time. The British. Like Hitler. Would invade any state they wished.

Finally, someone who defends the justifications for appeasement without being patronizing or refusing to acknowledge the massive flaws. I might've just added 2 things, 1) I would referred to Joe by his full name Joseph Chamberlain (the mental connection is easier) and maybe mention his support for the Imperial Federation (Joseph's) and 2) mention when Neville died given that he didn't live that long after his premiership.

@jerm70

Жыл бұрын

Appeasement was the only reasonable action to take at the time with the information they had at play. France and Britain was not ready to fight another war. The German-American relationship wasn't soured. The Japanese could have been swayed against aggression in the region. The British Economy would turn to dust and the colonies seized by Japan. These were reasonable fears for Britain at the time. That is why it took a figure like Churchill to take charge. He was far more willing to commit political suicide.

@optimatus

Жыл бұрын

@@jerm70 Giving away territory that doesn't belong to you is a disgrace.

@imreallynoob8311

Жыл бұрын

@@optimatus then you should fight instead of waiting for other country to send young men to die for you

@jerm70

Жыл бұрын

@@optimatus So would be sending young men to die when you think a war is not able to be won. Your point?

@optimatus

Жыл бұрын

@@imreallynoob8311 That's what Chamberlain did in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.

The British Chief of Staff wrote a note in March 1939 to the Cabinet writing "if the war were to go so badly that Poland and Romania are overrun". This quite clearly shows that the British did not expect Germany to be as successful or as powerful as they were. Germany went from being a pathetic creaking economy of 1939 to "the invincible juggernaut" in 1940 and this is all down to propaganda and needing an escape goat for disastrously bad decisions. Had the Chief of Staff instead wrote "if the war were to go so badly that Europe was overrun and the entire British Empire were to collapse", do you think Chamberlain would have been as quick to give Poland a security guarantee let alone declare war on Germany ? I suspect he would not have. The precedent of not going to war after stating you would do was already set by Palmerstone in the 1860s.

@nicholaspanos8986

11 ай бұрын

Scapegoat, though I imagine they would also have appreciated a goat to ride to safety.

@erichluepke855

10 ай бұрын

I think this is more a function of denial than it is about people's actual beliefs about the future of Poland in a total war. Nobody in high places would admit the truth about the likelihood of Poland holding, because if they did, it would be seen as a repudiation of the guarantee, a policy that was a diplomatic rather than military necessity.

@AFGuidesHD

10 ай бұрын

@@erichluepke855 They did admit it though, the British military advice was that Poland would hold an Eastern Front for "up to 3 months". They KNEW Poland had no hope against Germany yet still chose the path of getting Poland into a war with Germany to prevent German-Polish agreement and have Poland as an Eastern Front in war.

@blitzy3244

6 ай бұрын

an "escape goat". Are you 12? What a terrible take. Germany's economy was extremely robust after Big H came into power.

@WiseOwl_1408

3 ай бұрын

Post war rationalizing. Disregard generals rewriting to make themselves and their nation look better

14:00 The problem with this statement, which is all well and good and logical through and through, is that the exact same set of conditions applied to Poland as well, which was obviously next on Hitler's list if you had read and understood Mein Kampf. So the Allies gave up the Skoda tank factory, the Czech Army stockpiles and the excellent defensive lines in the Sudetenland, all for no corresponding increase in their own power. In essence they made the enemy stronger without gaining anything themselves except more time to rearm, but Germany was also doing that, and now they had the whole Czech economy working for them to help them too. Also, I read today in Speer's diary (questioned by some people, admittedly) that they were stunned when they tested their artillery against the Sudeten fortifications, and found it simply could not penetrate them. Also that Hitler's own view was recorded as, paraphrasing, "we will take enormous losses and it will be a difficult and costly struggle", before the Munich agreement was made. Finally there is the argument, probably the most compelling one to reject Munich, which is that there were rumblings of a coup against Hitler planned by military officers. The Sudeten fortifications would have been a difficulty for the 1938 German army, which was still not motorised enough for mobile warfare and had a lack of artillery and divisions compared to a year later. It would have been the best opportunity for a coup attempt the likes of which wouldn't come again. The terrain of Poland and defences there offered no chance of this happening. It is my view that Chamberlain made a fatal error which could have been avoided with a little more foresight.

@raidenromeo8427

Жыл бұрын

It wasn’t rumbling he was told that a coup would happen if Germany declared war. The reason why their was no coup when Poland was invaded was because hitler increased his control so it was not possible.

@iansneddon2956

Жыл бұрын

There's other reading. Britain's senior-most military leaders collectively coordinated their briefings to Chamberlain just before Munich, advising that if Britain got into a war with Germany a that time, even along with France, that they wold lose. They pleaded for war to be delayed by even just 6 months, that this would make a big difference in Britain's readiness. France had a similar assessment that they would lose alone and had first approached USA but the Americans insisted on their neutrality. If USA had stood up and come to Munich along with Britain and France, things would probably have turned out much differently. (Yes, much of Germany's strength was on paper and there was a potential to defeat Germany militarily at that time; isn't hindsight great; but this highlights what information Chamberlain had to make his decision. And supporting a coup attempt would run the risk of a failed coup with this being an act of war - a war that the military leaders believed that they would lose.)

@answerman9933

Жыл бұрын

@@iansneddon2956 How did that delay work out for Britain?

@neurofiedyamato8763

Жыл бұрын

Even though Britain and France declared war after Poland, they still did nothing like with Czech. Phoney war and all

@enysuntra1347

Жыл бұрын

I claim that you didn't read "Mein Kampf". It's a tedious, self-contradictory pamphlet that claims about everything not even Hitler took seriously when he dictated it to Hess. It is blatantly wrong that the Wehrmacht wasn't "motorised enough" to conduct a mobile war. We know it is blatantly wrong because barely a year later, the same Wehrmacht conducted a successful mobile war in Poland. Fortifications for Germany have never been to be breached. That's the whole point of the operational planning at least since 1935 (and, arguably, even before, since the middle of the 1920s). Following the same logic, you could say that in 1940 France had mounted a successful defence against Germany as it could not penetrate the Maginot Line. No, it couldn't; that's why it went around. What we do know: * In 1938, Chamberlain was furious when the General Staff informed him the UK was in no position to intervene militarily into an armed conflict. * From Munich to Dunkerque, Chamberlain re-armed the UK armed forces. * In 1940 when "La Drôle de Guerre" went "hot", the British and French forces weren't prepared and it took Germany 6 weeks to concquer France; even today historians are puzzled by the "Haltebefehl" that prevented the total annihilation of the British forces in Dunkerque. * Until 1942, Churchill became more and more desperate as the USA didn't commit to helping the UK and the UK struggled hard to rearm itself further. Those are the facts. It stands to reason not to buy time with Appeasement would have accelerated the Dunkerque catastrophy 1 year earlier, as the British forces in 1938 were even more unprepared than in 1940. The French defensive focus meant that Germany could wait ("Sitzkrieg") until the preparations to attack in the West were ready. The Oster plot was postponed after Munich as Hitler had succeeded diplomatically where the General Staff feared a military confrontation would be impossible; those same officers, however, were astonished how fast France fell and how catastrophically the UK forces failed in 1940. They *thought* Hitler was bluffing in 1938; however, they got confirmation about the UK forces' dismal state in 1940.

Would love to see a more in depth look on the war of the Spanish succession in the future

@mstebs

Жыл бұрын

i know so little about this but it always gets referred to would love to see more channels talking about this

@martinh77

Жыл бұрын

The Ageod wargame "Wars of Succession" covers this conflict and is loads of fun in multiplayer for those who are interested.

@cseijifja

Жыл бұрын

The war that shifted the world order from a spanish one to an english one.

@bengardner2363

Жыл бұрын

@@mstebs there’s a great mod for Hoi4 called ‘Empire’ It covers many conflicts in the 18th century, in particular the War of Spanish Succession.

@cyberpunkfalangist2899

Жыл бұрын

@@cseijifja I mean, the Spanish Empire was already entering into a period of decline by that point. The 30 years war and 80 years war had sapped so much of the Empire's strength it's not unreasonable to liken them to the world wars' effects on the British Empire.

This censorship required in this video is a disgrace I enjoyed this exploration of Chamberlain and 'appeasement', thanks for the upload

@aphelyon778

Жыл бұрын

@@basilmagnanimous7011 Oh, brother, I KNOW and I NOTICE. The h-caust has become a foundation myth for the new West. One centered on death. With its great evil and its great victim. Redefining concepts, scrapping and replacing values. Memorials for the h-caust everywhere but how scant the memorials for their saviors--curious. All peoples have exclusive right to their lands, ethnic Europeans have no right to theirs and permitted to go nowhere. Exclusive culture for all peoples but not for the European, theirs must be denied. True nationalism for everyone but not for the European man and woman. To suggest otherwise is the great sin. And you must not question it, must not do anything other than fully embrace it, despite how little it relates to you. And it's anathema to even display unapproved images, despite being a KZreadr simply wanting to talk about British history. Disgusting.

@Pokemaster-wg9gx

Жыл бұрын

The greatest irony here is youtube says theres 2 replies but they don’t actually show up when you click the comment lel

@iron2684

Жыл бұрын

@@basilmagnanimous7011 thou art an intelligent man

@_Beamish

Жыл бұрын

@@iron2684 You are both 14.

@henkschrader4513

Жыл бұрын

@@basilmagnanimous7011 the nationalsocialist party and movement has been growing very fast in the last years and since the end of 2019 and 2020 it has been growing almost exponentially, so soon we will be in power again and we will actually fight against our socialists and we will do it for OUR people not the immagrants wich we should get rid of by any means only the most useful 100 could stay with their families bc we need scientists and other very important jobs, when they outlive theit usefulness than they will be kicked out of the country or something else... we will make our people proud again of their Germanic blood and of their country. And i myself i will promise that i will do anything for our people and devote my life to us Germanics... it's gonna be hard but victory will be assured we learned from the last time and the movement has adopted to our time, but no way that we are gonna let our country be destroyed along with our principles, morals and culture...

Your clear telling of these complex and often diluted timelines is always admirable and highly praised by me - Provides a wonderful platform for discourse; healthy discourse I will add!

Oh it is well known in Czechia that Chamberlain's strategy was a realpolitik executed terribly. That hardly makes him any better for us though. He still left us high and dry without any input on the situation and all for nothing, simply because he didn't understand the determination of his opponent and what advantages he gained from the agreement. We know very well

@DarthFhenix55

Жыл бұрын

You are righ, but at the same time you're not considering how "Go and die for a foregin country just like 20 years ago" isn't a very convicing argument even when that was the right move, people wouldn't really realize how bad the situation was until they were the ones suffering.

@Imperium83

Жыл бұрын

You're literally a fake country that had no business existing after WW1 and everyone knew it then.

@troo_6656

Жыл бұрын

@@DarthFhenix55 I am considering that. Doesn't change a thing. He still left us to the pack of wolfs. Really doesn't matter to me he thought the pack wouldn't be stronger bigger, still hungry and go after him next before he can craft proper spear.

@Ussurin

Жыл бұрын

@@DarthFhenix55 Don't go around goving guarantees you are unwilling to fullfill. That's why westeners are deemed untrustworthy and traitors in the eastern Europe. Cause you make promises you are unwilling to ever fullfill. Like USA and UK now which gave Ukraine guarantee of their borders in exchange for their nukes, but yet are to dispatch their troops to defend Ukraine.

@silverletter4551

Жыл бұрын

@@troo_6656 Maybe your country should have been stronger. For the sake of peace, some countries are indeed expendable.

I feel like this is important and underappreciated. It's easy to say "that person was a moron to think that would work" or similar, but that's an easy out. Everyone operates in their own time with limited information, and everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes they're damn big mistakes.

@dusk6159

Жыл бұрын

Besides the fact that opting to resist german prevarication, so accepting war, would not have been an impossible situation at all, if anything it would've been a fairly easy and collective situation considering that many states in Europe would've been coalized and against a non-augmented Germany. The Czechs, their military industry and their country already would've been a huge tipping factor for the Allies (UK and France) in defeating Germany.

@Xpwnxage

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, we do this all the time with history. We make our own judgement calls with all of the information gained after the fact and how it all unfolded. It can't be stated enough how important it is to put yourself in the shoes of the person or group you are judging.

@hurricanemeridian8712

Жыл бұрын

@@dusk6159 That's cool but they didn't know that

@luisfilipe2023

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think chamberlain did a big mistake. It’s easy to imagine a shorter war with Germany when she was weaker but that ignores the fact that complete victory was the only solution to the nazi problem and that would require a total war even in 1933

Brilliantly done! A very stimulating and thought-provoking video essay on a topic often discussed in the same old terms.

At the re-arment of Rhine it could be excused. But by the time Czechoslovakia was taken over and Poland and Czechs begged France and Britian for war in defence of Czechs it has no excuses. UK and France couldn't by any logic expect to militarize faster than Germany while Germany was in war economy since '37 and they refused to spend as much at arms.

@Glassius89

Жыл бұрын

Poland did not begged allies to defend Czechs. It was very opposite, unfortunately. Poland was trying to take advantage of Czechoslovakia when they were in Sudetenland crisis.

@Ussurin

Жыл бұрын

@@Glassius89 it is well documented that Poland announced full willingness in joining the war against Germany if France would decide to uphold their guarantee to the Czechoslovakia and multiple times communicated that in their opinion a war from two sides as 4 countries is their preferential outcome. Only as France proved completly unwilling to do anything to defend Czechoslovakia Poland demanded Zaolzie to protect the Polish people living there. Poland decided that loosing Zaolzie was acceptable cost to uphold political connections. Only as those connections proved to be completly innefective Poland decided to prioritize saving Polish people over them and demanded the territory Czechoslovakia stole during Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 while Poland was unable to defend it's western border.

@Glassius89

Жыл бұрын

@@Ussurin Well documented, great. When did Poland announced, it is willing to protect Czechoslovakia? Because it did not confirm when Pierre Laval was asking Beck for it in 1935. Beck did not answer. In the same year Poland established K7 (Komitet Siedmiu) which was planning urprising and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In march 1936 Poland asked Yugoslavia if they would oppose partitions of Czechoslovakia. In August 1936 Maurice Gamelin arrived to Poland and asked for it Rydz-Śmigły, he also did not confirm they can ally Czechoslovakia. The same happened in September 1936 in Paris. In June 1838 Leon Noёl heared the same from Rydz Śmigły. In September 1938 Poland was already telling to Germany, than if anything happens, Poles are taking Zaolzie. You can check articles "Gdy Polak i Czech się biją: Dlaczego nie udało nam się zawiązać sojuszu przeciwko Hitlerowi z Czechosłowacją?" by Andrzej Krajewski and "Zajęcie Zaolzia przez Polskę w 1938 roku. Dlaczego nasze wojsko wzięło udział w rozbiorze Czechosłowacji?" by Rafał Kuzak. The whiole diplomatic offensive before Munich agreement is described in book "Kiedy wybuchnie wojna? 1938. Studium kryzysu" by Piotr M. Majewski.

@Ussurin

Жыл бұрын

@@Glassius89 On the Munich Conference Poland was opposing the whole agreement and only after they found no support in western allies, they joined the talks to save the Poles from potential German rule.

@Glassius89

Жыл бұрын

@@Ussurin Poland did not officialy participate in Munich conference. Can you say what Pole was defending Czechoslovakia on Munich conference?

You did a very fine job of showing Germany’s predicament in 1939. I e so often heard amateur historians say that if o my Germany had delayed the war for 5 years, the would have been in better shape. Even if that supposition were true, it doesn’t take into account that the western Allies would be in a vastly better position in five years.

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

The Allies would have been in a even better position if they didnt salivate at the prospect of a war with Germany and looked after their own business

@pathutchison7688

Жыл бұрын

@@98TrueRocker98 In what respect, specifically?

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

@@pathutchison7688 If the Allies ignored what was happening to the east of Germany they would have kept all their colonies and they wouldnt have had any destruction and death from war because Germany had no interest in western Europe

@pathutchison7688

Жыл бұрын

@@98TrueRocker98 let’s assume you’re right. And the reich defeated the Soviets, or at least pushed them past the Urals to the point where they were basically defeated. Now France has a Giant Nazi Germany on its border. That’s a new Cold War at the very least. It could have been a lot worse too. And the time of colonies was about done. It wouldn’t have been tenable to hold on to them for long in that world any easier than this one.

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

@@pathutchison7688 It would have been the same Cold War as with the Soviets, or even better because Germany had more in common with other western countries then the Soviets

I love you channel, man! It’s always made me think about the what if’s, as well as a bigger understanding of the time periods at hand.

'Hitler is an honourable man, I do not for one moment believe he deceived me intentionally' - Nevile Chamberlain to the House of Commons in his address post the German invasion of Czechoslovakia

@TheEvilAdventurer

Жыл бұрын

@iMakz lol okay Joseph

@Imperium83

Жыл бұрын

​@@TheEvilAdventurer They didn't, the government of Czechoslovakia literally collapsed and left a vacuum that either the Soviet Union would fill or Germany.

@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367

Жыл бұрын

@@Imperium83 no you pulled that out of your ass

@dansmith1661

Жыл бұрын

@@TheEvilAdventurer Ok, Rabbi

@serebii666

Жыл бұрын

@iMakz Germany literally invaded Czechoslovakia both in 1938 and 1939.

Excellent video, congratulations. It was good to see you recently expressing struggles with planning/editing, because this documentary continues your streak as a great historical channel at sometimes overlooked topics. Keep getting better at your craft. Would love to see you take on the task of describing how *ahem* "Berlin" managed to rebuild Germany's military prowess in the interwar years.

Great video, greetings from Serbia 🇷🇸🤝🇬🇧

@SillyUwUBilly

Жыл бұрын

There are Serbs that like Britan ? 🤨

@jjj8317

3 ай бұрын

​@@SillyUwUBilly They are mindless communists Russian puppets.

Actually Chamberlin's cabinet (and probably himself too since if he was so opposed to his cabinet he could just replace them) knew Hitler was likely to not be satisfied. However, in their minds appeasement was worth it both for the small chance Hitler would actually be appeased but in the likely event he'd go for more land, the time bought would give time for Britain to rearm. Of course they were wrong on both accounts. Britain's military wasn't in the best of shape during the Munich discussion, but Czechoslovakia had hardened defenses and post war analysis by British and Germans (no need to keep secrets from allies at this point) was done and everyone agreed if Britain stood behind Czechoslovakia, even if the French didn't send a single plane or soldier out of France, the Germans would be doomed. They's just bash their heads against fortifications they couldn't beat. The Royal Navy would strangle Germany's economy (remember Romania at this time wasn't a German ally) and the not-quite-rearmed British Army could pick apart a depleted Heer since again most of their forces would be in Czechoslovakia getting their butts kicked. Or maybe the German generals might just overthrow Hitler for ordering something so stupid since many old Reichswehr era generals agreed with the modern assessments. My point was many contemporary British politicians knew Hitler was probably untrustworthy and this wasn't some naïve belief in his character, even if their analysis on the military area was a bit off.

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

Or orrrrrrr, and hear me out, maybe, just maybe, Chamberlin and those who thought like him knew Hitler wasnt looking west but east and they didnt want to go to another stupid needless war

@jonaskosak6766

Жыл бұрын

Very interesting, and this is very late, but do you think you could share the source for those analyses by the British and the Germans? I never heard of them, and the mainstream explanation of Czech history was that fighting would be pointless, and that we had no hope.

@leojohn1615

Жыл бұрын

@@jonaskosak6766 its a moot point if the Czechs would have held or not. Why? Because the Germans were desperately short on just about every resource imaginable. From oil to food to steel to chromium they relied on imports this was a major reason for Germany's desire to conquer more land to start with. With no Munich agreement there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would not receive grain, oil and rare metals from the USSR. Germany would not continue to receive steel from Sweden and Norway as the Brits would have dragged them into the war. Germany would not have any overseas imports. This would make German victory impossible before they even started in the worst case where they defeat the french they are still facing a war against the USSR except without the ability to hide behind the lie of a nonaggression pact.

Wow...basically Germany by 1939 was like "We are too far in to pull back now...fuck it" and just threw the whole table upside down.

@stephenhill545

Жыл бұрын

Like putin now.

The actual true failure of Chamberlain and Deladier was not to attack Germany from the West in September 1939 which could have stopped the annihilation of Poland. Instead the BEF and French simply sat (Sitz Krieg) on the Alsace-Lorraine border. This allowed Germany to regroup and re-arm for its own assault later..

@Imperium83

Жыл бұрын

Eight months later... as France and the UK did nothing and Germany tried to sue for peace the entire time.

@uingaeoc3905

Жыл бұрын

@@Imperium83 What a relevant name you have, 'goon', and a comment to match. Of course Germany wanted 'peace' after its successful conquests in East and Central Europe. But there were air raids and sea warfare. In France and the UK there was political turmoil between the Appeasement groups and those which had woken up to the intentions of Germany. Of course Germany's version of 'peace' involved invading neutral countries as well. The invasion of Norway caused the shift in the UK to Churchill and the Coaltion government he formed. So Goon you write rubbish and pro-Nazi rubbish at that.

@pax6833

Жыл бұрын

That was not a failure of Chamberlain and Deladier. Such an attack was planned and in preparation. But Poland was effectively defeated in two weeks. It's impossible to organize an offensive in just two weeks. By the time the Allies were ready to attack Germany from the west, such an attack was rendered meaningless. Had the Poles held back the Germans better, it's possible that the Allies could have had time to attack the west. Although, even in such a scenario, Poland's position is hopeless and inevitable because they will still be attacked by the USSR and overrun.

@uingaeoc3905

Жыл бұрын

@@pax6833 DRIVEL. The poiunt is UK-France could have attacked and did not do so.

@pax6833

Жыл бұрын

@mwfp1987 The Ruhr was not undefended, there were more than a dozen German divisions in place (France also could not have known the exact number of troops) in fortified defensive lines to prevent any rapid French attack. In both previous wars with Germany (1914/1870), previous experience showed that a hasty offensives into the Rhineland had produced terrible defeats. Any attack into Germany by France in 1939 would thus necessarily be slow, in line with its methodical battle doctrine developed in 1918. And, should such an attack even have occurred and after overcoming the initial defenses, the French army would then be caught out in the open, outside of their defenses, by a rapid German counterattack. In short, there was no benefit to attacking. Contrary to your expectation, there were very good reasons why the British and French did what they did.

This here are some really fascinating points. I teach highschoolers and will use this topic in my coming history classes for the WW2 subject. Thank you for making this!

Another great video! Since I can tell you put great care into your maps, for future reference Zara in Dalmatia was an Italian enclave from 1918, remaining Italian when much of the rest of Dalmatia was also annexed to Italy in 1941, the city is today Zadar in Croatia Keep up the great work!

This was a superb exposition. Well done, sir.

Awesome video, although it was overlooked that Great Britain also placed a great amount of resources into Strategic Air defense. The Dowding system and the coordination of Fighter command was not the default in 1938 to 1941. The build up in the airforce was intentional and lead to a big affect in how the war ultimately turned out

Many people forget that Poland was the only nation that Britain and France could defend or at least show support. Appeasement should be called a more necessary sacrifice idea. However the other reason for Poland being the point to stand is the boogeyman of Europe, the Soviet Union.

@dapperbunch5029

Жыл бұрын

Also Hitler wanted a British alliance as this would help him attack the United States. However the situation evolved into one where that was a impossibility.

@uingaeoc3905

Жыл бұрын

@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler's fantasies about a UK-German alliance are irrelevant. The geo-politics was that Germany was an enemy of France and UK.

@serebii666

Жыл бұрын

@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler wanted a British rapprochement because he was an Anglophile, he had no ambitions for America since it was then as it is now patently impossible to invade the American continent. What he wanted was to ensure America would remain neutral in any European conflict.

@dapperbunch5029

Жыл бұрын

@@serebii666 he wanted to destroy America's naval and economic influence. It would prevent the so called, "Jewish influence".

Very interesting and well made -- looking forward to Part 2!

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

What...?

You (and many others) miss one important point. Giving up Czechoslovakia, gave Germans important industrial assets including ready to use tanks and other armament. Without Czechoslovakia Germany may possibly wouldn't decide to start the war against Poland. Appeasement started way earlier than we think. When after post WW1 deciding about the borders of Poland British government of Lloyd George heavily favorized Germany rather than Poland in assigning Upper Silesia region. British interest was more in German capacity to pay war reparation than in real justice for the local population. Anyway Munich pact was nothing more than buying some peace time for Britain at the expense of Czechoslovakia. Good business, wasn't it ?

@warwolf3005

Жыл бұрын

Good point, Czechoslovakia had vast arms industry

@ERH1453

Жыл бұрын

...and Krupp got Skoda.

Interesting to see the failures of Neville's policy in some ways mirrored by the way the EU handled Russia after its first invasion of Ukraine 9 years ago.

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

What "failures"? Neville's policy was very much successful. It kept Britain out of a needless and retarded war

@DrMrPersonGuy

Жыл бұрын

After Chechnya really

@Howleye

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@Howleye

Жыл бұрын

@@DrMrPersonGuy why?

@DrMrPersonGuy

Жыл бұрын

@@Howleye because russia annexed them with barbaric tactics.

It is always cute to me how appeasement and security guarantees are seen as RealPolitik. There is a huge difference between realism and pragmatism/practicality.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

Do you have the word Real Politik, borrowed from German...?

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

@@secretname4190 But the term is not exact use in the original sense of the word. But that's not uncommon with German loanwords in English...

@briannawaldorf8485

Жыл бұрын

It was popularised by Henry Kissinger, a German Holocaust survivor eho fled to the us and became a statesman / advisor with a lot of really bad geopolitical tales which lead to Nixon aiding in numerous regime changes and genocides.

@alioshax7797

11 ай бұрын

"Realpolitik" and "realism" have become meaningless words used by any diplomat or politician trying to defend his own ideas about foreign policy.

Great job of explaining a nuanced situation, I very much enjoyed your work!

wanting to outmatch an opponant by giving him land and industry is quite a gamble (1/3 of german tanks in France in 1940 have been produced in czech industries) it was already too late to go this route

@AFGuidesHD

5 ай бұрын

Difference is the Brits were also pretty unarmed in 1938 also. It's easier to go to war when you have at least a couple hundred planes vs about 30 that they had in 1938. Source: I have none it was a total guess, but Lord Halifax said something like 'every month meant more planes were built'.

Another fantastic episode, thanks for making it.

Fantastic video. I've always hated how quickly people use Munich as an example for everything without looking at any of the facts beforehand.

@slavekfoltyn9678

Жыл бұрын

Ohh really??? May be history of your country was not so deeply harmed by Munich "betrayal" like mine that caused immediate destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 and subsequent deep mistrust of the Czech democratic elites towards the west that helped communists to persuade the postwar government to reject Marshall plan first and take the government in 1948 for next 40 years.

I think Chamberlain's biggest problem (which can probably be generalized to everyone in power on his side) was that he underestimated what his side could do. He seemed to think that rearmament was needed when Germany had barely rearmed herself when the Rhineland crisis arose. He also severely discounted the value of having the USSR on the Allied side even if they couldn't send troops overland right away. Then there's the fact that the West Wall was unfinished and that Germany didn't have enough troops to fight the Czechs and the French at the same time. He bought into the German propaganda and accepted as settled the gloomy predictions of his chiefs.

According to Hitler himself, the munich agreement was the biggest mistake of his career. In February 1945, he said "we ought to have gone to war in 1938. September 1938 would have been the most favorable date." Germany desperately wanted a war in with France in 1938, which it was poised to win decisively. But chamberlain denied him this, giving the UK, France, and the soviets time to fix their militaries. It is possible that the much maligned Chamberlain actually prevented the ultimate triumph of Nazi Germany.

@Quickshot0

Жыл бұрын

Hitler might have believed that, but it would probably have been his death. At the time substantial parts of the German military were plotting against them thinking he was putting Germany on the course of disaster. From what can be reconstructed, one of the officers even had a gun ready to shoot him in case the war started in 1938. It's also in error because the German army in 1938 was far weaker then the one that defeated France in 1940 and was far less likely to win. But well... Hitler was often enough not the best person in making realistic plans or realistic assessments. Conspiracy theorists like him rarely are.

@jozefgrunmann7998

Жыл бұрын

Are you joking ? By allowing him to start a war he prevented nothing but peace in the World .

@dominiksoukal

Жыл бұрын

You have to be joking, he gave Germany the Czech military industry and removed the Czechoslovak army out of existence. If he didn't the war would have ended at the latest in 1941 and the Soviets would never rule half the continent. His actions did more to harm to the democratic world then every Soviet leader after Stalin.

@trijezdci4588

Жыл бұрын

Nonsense. Hitler didn't know about the Oster putsch plan. But Chamberlain and Daladier did, since the German military had sent emissaries to London and Paris before the Munich conference to brief them about their plan to putsch, to be activated in the event that Hitler gave the order to march on Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, when Hitler toured the Czech fortifications along the border, he was so impressed by those fortifications that he told Goebbels "It is a good thing we didn't have to fight here because we would have bitten our teeth out". If Chamberlain had refused Hitler an agreement in Munich, (1) the Czechs would not have had any reason to abide by such an agreement and they would have resisted, (2) the Oster putsch would have taken place, throwing the Wehrmacht in disarray right in the moment of war. If it had been unsuccessful, it would have caused a crack down on the officer corps, weakening the Wehrmacht to the point that the invasion would have failed. The French army and the BEF could have quickly moved across Southern Germany for there was absolutely nothing standing in their way, which was the reason why the German military was against an attack on Czechoslovakia in the first place, they knew if Britain and France would attack, they would be defeated soundly. Last but not least, Stalin -- for all his faults and not without ulterior motives -- had tried to aid Czechoslovakia by sending troops, yet Poland and Romania denied them passage. Not to be deterred, the soviets then sent 100 fighter planes to Czechoslovakia including pilots and ground support personnel. This would have been a formidable defense against attacks by the Luftwaffe.

@Snake.007

Жыл бұрын

Not only did the Munich agreement hand over the vast fortifications build by the Czechs in the Sudetenland, and dissolve the Czech army, but it also facilitated the transfer of vast quantities of military industry and equipment that the Germans then used in order to invade France and later the USSR.

Yeah this. Fall Gelb was a HUGE bit of luck that required multiple lines of failure among the allies to succeed

@Barrystue

Жыл бұрын

@@secretname4190 German generals in France: masterfully cuts clean through the French army in the Ardennes. German generals in Russia: gets their ass whipped so badly they have to blame it on Shmadolf Shmitler and create the Russia biggest stronk myth.

@Barrystue

Жыл бұрын

@@secretname4190 while the initial push was amazing, it also never really secured the land it took, leading to smaller Russian groups who were cut off to go underground and become partisans, a huge detriment to Germany’s already overstretched logistics. once they were repelled from moscow it was mostly German generals making blunder after blunder and blaming it on moustachio. There are exceptions to this (Kharkiv is the only one I remember right now) German high command at the time of the initial push into Russia was filled to the brim with overconfidence. By the end of the war with Russia, it was full of lies to preserve their ego, lies of a clean Wehrmacht, lies that hitler cost the German army the whole war, lies of superior Soviet equipment (which is utter bullshit).

4:09 Make it 4. Soviet being Communist was seen as a threat just as much as German, Italy and Japan if not even greater otherwise Britain and French would have try to called Russia assistance like in WW1 but they didn't.

I think I have never seen a video discussing Chamberlain or 1930's Britain to emphasise how terrible the condition of UK's armed forces were, and hadn't really internalised that from small details either, and those that have only glanced it as Chanberlain's appeasement. I hope this becomes the most successful video on the channel and maybe it'll inspire other KZread historians to revise their attitude towards the man who actually for years prepared Britain for WW2 And like said, no one looks at time before 1938 Munich

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

It won't, it won't surprise them, only a truly competent presentation will challenge their mind set.

The video ignores the Oster conspiracy and that the German people didn't want war as much as the Western populace. I hope this aspect is covered in the follow-up of this video because it is an important consideration. If Hitler did attack Czechoslovakia they would not have had a population so assured in the Nazi government. The success of Munich was a move that solidified Nazi control and legitimised them while a war for the Sudetenland would have done the opposite. The Oster conspiracy was known to the UK and as such Chamberlain had enough knowledge to know that he could count on German instability. All you said is correct and the Allies were in a bad strategic position in 1938 but the Axis had it worse. Italy was less ready for war and Japan couldn't dare jump on the colonies yet. A war over the Sudetenland would be decided by the Czech fortifications. Even if the Oster conspiracy failed (though its attempt would force Hitler to purge some of his most valuable generals to keep hold) every day Czechia held firm was a day closer to the German population murdering Hitler. As such the only calculation to be done was if the Chezchs could have held (their prospects were good). Clearly, Chamberlain thought they weren't going to hold but considering the likely success of the Oster conspiracy it seems like a major blunder. Again even if we ignored the possible success of Oster the very attempt would place important generals like Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, General Wilhelm Adam, Generaloberst Walther von Brauchitsch, Generaloberst Franz Halder, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Generalleutnant Erwin von Witzleben, all prominent names and invaluable to later German successes (outside of Canaris who was fucking Hitler over at every opportunity), in the shitter. Germany's war effort was going to be hampered giving way more room for the Czechs to breath and the German populace to decide if they want to risk another WW1 (they didn't).

@OldBritannia

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful critique, and will concede that I probably should have devoted at least a line or two to the conspiracy. However, the video does explicitly state that going to war in 1938 would have been more logical in hindsight. On the conspiracy, the idea that a politician should potentially send hundreds of thousands of young men to die on the vague notion that the enemies leader might be overthrown, is in my opinion a nonsense. And considering Hitler's luck when it comes to surviving assassination attempts, I think Chamberlain was absolutely right to ignore this factor.

@duckling3615

Жыл бұрын

@@OldBritannia Thank you for the reply. Just want to mention that the Oster conspiracy itself should not be considered too profoundly in such a video because Chamberlain could not have known its chances of success. It would have been quite the gamble to risk the lives of millions on some Germans promising to make a coup. What matter though is its implication. It proves the instability of the German regime and the possible unrest within the government and citizenry of the Reich. The Allies having knowledge of such instability just has to be mentioned. This is an important factor for any strategic analysis of the Allies' vs. the Axis's strength. War was not popular on either side in 1938 and that should be part of the calculus of power if one is to compare it to 1939 when the Germans were behind the war. So really I would just have enjoyed that part of the calculation mentioned when discussing why Chamberlain did what. On another note, the Hitler assassination survival luck is something that only exists in hindsight and not something that should be looked at at all. Just hoping that the German domestic front in 1938 and 1939 gets a bigger mention in the next video.

@Oldbrittania Credit for pointing out the parasitic nature of the Nazi Germany economy. Layman often like to talk about the ‘economic miracle’, but I try to point out that there was nothing special to the notion of conquering others, enforcing an imbalanced economic regime upon the vanquished, and shipping the difference home.

It is interesting, to be honest, seeing that fear everyone had of a second potential WW1 round 2.

There were plenty of people even before the war broke out who had a low opinion of Appeasement. My great-grandfather used to refer to Chamberlain as "Neville Chambermaid". There were some who even called him "Neville Chamberpot"...

Another excellent video! Really enjoyed the counterfactuals at the end. Made me reconsider the merits of appeasement. Would be interested to see a video explaining when appeasement worked.

Another fantastic video! Unfortunately, those of us living in contemporary times have a very biased view of history - we merely perceive historical events through the lense of hindsight. However, this video did an excellent job of upending that bias by providing us with a well researched series of events & decisions made at the time that ultimately lead up to the start of World War II. 😁👍

@endloesung_der_braunen_frage

Жыл бұрын

Appeasement was a good thing. It strengthened Germany to the point she fehlt capable to unleash a world war, a war that would ultimately destroy the european empires and the racist age of West Born in 16th century at very latest. All in all very good. 70 million died with a purpose...

The illogical feature of the appeasement policy isn't necessarily in the politics, but rather the magical thinking involved in the run-up to the crisis that resulted in appeasement. Neville believed that appeasement was the only way forward because past government policies had intentionally made deterrence non-credible. These same policies that Chamberlain himself helped push forward and champion. The massive disinvestment in the military accross democratic Europe basically guaranteed that a revanchist power would start a conflict in Europe. A constant pattern in world history is that dovish politicians stoke domestic war exhaustion in order to defund the military and funnel those funds towards their domestic pet projects. Meanwhile the detterence and balance of power created by that military and that allowed a peace to be negotiated in the first place is eroded, and nothing is left in its place. The power vaccuum caused by massive European military disinvestment leading up to 1939 is what encouraged the Nazis to pursue massive rearmament. They saw a weak and defenseless Europe, and like any other predator they attacked. This is why I always take an extremely dim view of dovish politicans who argue that military spending is wasteful. You fund a military to enforce a peaceful status quo. A peaceful status quo that these dovish politicans want to maintain, but they don't want to pay for.

@strategystuff5080

8 ай бұрын

Basically yeah, I am not a fan of the Military as a concept, but I understand their necessity, if you want peace prepare for war, most nations will only attack if they perceive a imbalance in power in their favor

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

He funded the military...

The argument that the allies would have overtaken Germany in the arms race if appeasment wasnt given up too early is nonsensical because the only reason why Germany ever had a lead in the arms race was BECAUSE OF appeasment! The biggest blunder of the appeasment policy was that GB and France let Germany overtake them militarily in the first place. They should have driven a harder line from the beginning when they had every advantage to do so.

Watching this video reminded me of a scene in the movie “Captain America: Civil War” that shows just how deeply ingrained the ultimate failure of Appeasement is ingrained in popular memory. Near the beginning of the movie there’s a scene where Tony Stark is trying to convince Steve Rogers to sign on to a UN agreement which would put the Avengers under international oversight. After getting nowhere, Tony makes a final appeal that the agreement guarantees “peace in our time.” At this, Steve suddenly looks deeply concerned. The movie doesn’t explain why he reacts this way, the audience is simply assumed to be able to understand why that phrase wouldn’t convince a WWII veteran to agree to anything. It’s a pretty clear sign that a historical event is widely known of when you can casually reference in a superhero movie. (As much as I enjoy the Captain America trilogy, I’d never pretend it’s highbrow cinema that appeals purely to the most academic patronage).

Incredible video! The amount of quality and detail you put into these always amazes me.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

Äh... No!

I am so glad you made this video

When you look into the hard facts appeasement was 100% the correct policy and Chamberlains only mistake was actually declaring war when we did instead of waiting another year or two for the army to actually rearm properly. Britain was almost completely bankrupt to the point where we defaulted on our war debt to the USA in 1932. That is why the Johnson act was passed. If Britain had gone in instead of appeasing we would have embarked from rusted ships like the Hood, marched up the beach with men who don't want to be there, with no heavy tanks and biplanes as the main fighter support. The public actually protested the strong stance we took with Germany in 1938 and wanted no part in keeping Germany out of old German territories. During 1936-38 the results of by-elections were all won by politicians who were against rearmament. With all that considered the idea that we should have gone in before 1940 is crazy.

9:14 "Britain had no nations to plunder" lol

Thank You for the video! Just as within talk about any pre-WWII action Treaty of Versalies has to be mentioned: if Germany was treatened like France after Napoleonic wars end (i.e. no border carving, no exotic countries along the border as "protection from future french aggression", etc.) there will be no such issues to be dealt with in such an original manner as "appeasement". Remeber that France and England were even tried to force Denmark (that was not participated in WWI!) to accept more lands from Germany in Schleswig - just to be one more buffer state! To say nothing about other strange decisions in Europe (What are the horrid actions Hungary did to loose 2/3 of its territory? Why didn't Greese gain Konstantinople and Smirna and Cyprus? etc.) led to the situation as even was pointed just after Versalies: "Thank God, we have peace!" - "No, it is just an armistice".

@alioshax7797

11 ай бұрын

With "ifs", we can put the moon in a bottle. No one knows what would've happened without Versailles, or with a Versailles under different terms. Germany was the most powerful state in Europe anyway, it was only a matter of time before Berlin tried to turn this demographic and economic dominance into political hegemony, one way or another. To France, weakening Germany was a matter of survival, no revenge. Also, Greece lost their war against Turkey anyway. They got Smyrne, but they lost it right afterwards in 1921.

Not that WW1 was anything like a party, but you really do feel for the French and British in those terms. You just got as drunk as you've ever been, you're passed out, then Germany starts blaring the Hörstwessellied and you're like "fuck man, already?" Then some guy named Hitler starts shaking your shoulder demanding the Sudetenland, and you're like "who even cares dude, just take it."

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

I think you misunderstand the situation fundamentally! There was no happiness drunkenness in 1919. Just a bunch of people who found themselves in a bad situation after the peace treaty. Great Britain was occupied with serious domestic problems. There were massive clashes and strikes, which led to the first use of tanks in history against the country's own population. And France, went into one of the most politically unstable periods in its history. And the legacy of Versailles weighed heavily. It was to be expected that this would be the case. And in a speech in Versailles in 1919, the British prime minister clearly predicted how things would continue with Germany, with rare political foresight: "One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last , to compel restitution from its conquerors.To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland.” But that's exactly what happened because of France's vengefulness...

@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016

Жыл бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I'd draw your attention to the fact that I did preface it with "WW1 was nothing like a party." But everything you said is correct. Versailles was incredibly short sighted and punitive. I know a significant body of historians are fighting a rear guard action to defend it but the fact that WW2 happened a mere generation later tells you all you need to know. Barring breaking up Germany back into the Holy Roman Empire, it would've been far better to actually have an armistice (which Germany thought it was getting) than what happened. The results of the more lenient treatment of [West] Germany after 1945 also prove this.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am very pleased that there is now more emphasis on looking at facts than on justifications. More will happen. And then, hopefully, the French strategy of wanting to get this war at any price will finally be examined more closely. The Jean Jaures assassination, I think, is the key. I even make the bold claim that it was not the assassination of the Archduke but the assassination of Jean Jaures that made this war what it became...

@smal750

9 ай бұрын

​@@melchiorvonsternberg844 cope harder. you invaded and got smacked twice. hopefuly the allies didnt make the same mistake as in ww1 of not completly crushing germany.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

9 ай бұрын

@@smal750 lol... You stupid child! Your knowledge of the events is as limited as your ability to make proper analyzes. What is the situation today? All the empires that Europeans built before World War I no longer exist. Without Germany, the liberation of the colonies would not have happened! And what did Germany lose in the end? 3 provinces in the fuckin' cold East, but France and England their vast empires. Germany leads the EU, the Americans provided us with nuclear weapons over 50 years ago and France offered to share their nuclear weapons with us. And one thing you should never do... underestimate the Germans and their abilities. That could be a rude awakening!

Well made video from a unique, under explored, purely logistical perspective. but i’m sorry, “Britain had no nations to plunder in support of its war effort” is an absolutely insane statement

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

Good comment TC

Appeasement from Chamberlain is what allowed the RAF to become Britain’s savior in 1940. Those few years between 1934 and 1940 gave the British the crucial time to build up the RAF to become the formidable foe of the Luftwaffe. That’s why estimates of 150,000 deaths per week made in 1934 had been reduced radically to much lower numbers-the much stronger RAF downed a tremendous number of German planes. There’s also the invention of radar, which happened during those crucial years Chamberlain was shoveling money into the RAF. The sole invention of radar allowed the RAF to have a huge leg up against the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and to prosecute the massive air war waged against German territory and cities starting in 1941.

I love this and some of your other 1930’s videos in Europe. Showing how things weren’t quite set in stone. Although far too late in the history you cover, it would be cool to see a video from you comparing what happened in the 30’s and the events leading up to the Russo-Ukrainian war. You mentioning the British government was overstating the German aerial threat reminds me of the threat Russia would pose to Europe, militarily speaking.

@kingace6186

Жыл бұрын

Like the Holodomor, caused by Stalin's collectivization. Also, Britain didn't "overstate" the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. The London Biltzkreig is proof of that. In fact, the Battle of London, if a few things happened differently, would have been a German victory.

@dansmith1661

Жыл бұрын

Amazing how everyone hates bankers, but they must take their money in order to operate without being toppled by a frenzied populace.

it was the same people accusing chamberlain of cowardice who, if the war had broken out earlier, wouldve protested in the streets against unjustified military action.

@EdgyDabs47

Жыл бұрын

Definitely. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

@98TrueRocker98

Жыл бұрын

The war wouldnt have broken if the British government didnt declare it upon Germany

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

@@EdgyDabs47 the Kaiser had only to refuse Austria his help to save Germany from disaster, and Chamberlain was never going to repeat his mistake, no matter how much controversy was generated

Gary Neville Chamberlain... VAR helps the little Austrian wizard beat the offside trap⚽

Chamberlain holding up that paper declaring peace in Europe while hitlers taking over Europe is definitely one of the moments of all time.

Excellent, very nuanced video. I think too much WW2 scholarship neglects the French, who were at least co-equal if not the more important factor in the interwar years RE Germany

Great video, looking forward to part 2!

Its really difficult to express how impressed i am with your content both in terms of style and content

This channel is the new HistoryCivilis for me.

Great video about a very misunderstood prime minister, and posted on the anniversary of mustache man’s accession to the German chancellery no less

The censorship is crazy nowadays !! Great Video, thanks for producing it.

Please keep this up, always look forward to your episodes

@OldBritannia

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Chamberlain, once war started. Was one of the most vociferous opponents of the Germans. He was the first person Churchill wanted. He was cooland great organiser. He is treat badly because of the peace ballots. He did not have a mandate for war. The public wanted peace at any cost. That's not his fault. He did what the public wanted. And as always the public blames him instead if themselves. Appeasement doesn't work.

I've not watched the video yet, but I always found appeasement to be a flawed policy, but understandable given the aftermath of the great war, what I've never found acceptable is the phony war, (or sitskreig,) and then the post war abandment of Poland, the allies really left Eastern Europe to the dogs during the entire war.

9:14 I higly doubt that😂😂😂 Keep up your videos, you are great.

@andreamarino6010

3 ай бұрын

You know what they say about brits making them look the best. I mean look at napoleonic wars "Napoleone you're bad because you want to rule instead of us"

The Nazis were so evil that if history were fiction, they'd be decried as unrealistic antagonists. And we're supposed to be surprised people underestimated it?

Currently reading 'Innovation' by Peter Ackroyd and this very subject is discussed. Honestly, considering what had happened in Europe twenty years before, Chamberlain was doing the right thing, as you say, to buy time. He was thinking as an Imperialist with a GLOBAL perspective and not as a European with a regional focus.

The fatal flaw with the idea of appeasement was, while it did indeed give greater time for Britain to strengthen its army, the British armament speed during that purchased time was still lower than that of Germany. In other words Britain wasn't buying time for itself, it was in practical terms buying time for Germany.

Fantastic video with the correct opinion on allied appeasement! People often oversimplify something that could have (and did in many ways) work, and certainly contains a lot of nuance. Thanks, and good evening!

Excellent scope, context, and presentation! Thank-you for this!

Very good video mate, you always put out quality 👌

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

No... It overlooked basic things!

Another fantastic video!

Funny how a century later, Macron was travelling to Moscow to do the same thing.

One of the big elements that played into this and the early defeats of the alies was the actions of intellectuals. Many had contributed heavily towards the disarmament and anti war sentiment that left the nations unable and unwilling to defend themselves.

At the time the phrase that everyone repeated ironically was actually Hitler's, "This is my last territorial demand in Europe". It is impossible to overstate what a watershed in public opinion Hitler going back on his word produced.

Great video, it's very hard to find nuanced discussions of really anything these days, but I think you have done a good job presenting one here.

Flawed indeed but in this situation nobody could have made a decision that would have left everybody happy.

@finndaniels9139

7 ай бұрын

Definitely. A couple missed opportunities, but a hugely difficult situation.

Another factor in Appeasement was that Germany's comparatively weak army was not a well known fact. The Allies likely didn't know for sure that they could have crushed Germany in 1935.

Excellent video. Helps explain quite a bit. I look forward to part 2. Cheers

One of the first things Chamberlain did on returning from Munich was to massively increase orders for fighters. He was not fooled by Hitler and the situation was clear. Had he gone to war in 1938, the Battle of Britain would have primarily fought with Gloster Gladiator biplanes. It was fought with Hurricanes and Spitfires, thanks to Chamberlain

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

Such a thing can only be cheered by someone who mistakenly believes that the Battle of Britain prevented an invasion. But that is by no means the case! Hitler decided that the invasion would not go ahead. And long before that air battle ended...

@EdgyDabs47

Жыл бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Why would the Luftwaffe attack Britain then? What would they achieve?

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

@@EdgyDabs47 Of course it was about weakening the British defenses through the air battle. But that wasn't actually a prerequisite for being able to carry out an invasion. Because the moment an invasion is launched, all the advantages that the RAF had given the British during the fight deep in English airspace are gone. If a Briton is shot down at sea, he is not two hours later on a new plane to take part in the fighting again, if he survived at all. The short distances for the British are gone. And the German fighters have more fuel left to fight and if the planes are damaged, the way home is much shorter. You must also realize that contrary to popular belief, the Royal Navy was unable to prevent an invasion. That was the conclusion reached by a commission of naval experts set up by Churchill. Also, contrary to popular belief, the ship convoys for the invasion were by no means largely destroyed by British air raids on the launch ports. That's only a hero's tale... I am supplying the figures for this, about the plans of the Germans and the shipping space actually available, at the end of the 2nd decade of September. The Kriegsmarine calculated the requirement at the end of July '40 to the following volume: 155 freighters (about 700,000 GRT) 1,722 punts 471 tug 1,161 motor boats This includes losses of 10%. The Kriegsmarine reported operational readiness by September 19: 168 freighters 1975 punts 100 coasters 420 tugs 1,600 motor boats This clearly shows that everything was ready and just waiting for the GO. There are other aspects too... When the invasion begins and takes place, it will be a real shock to the British, because that hasn't happened for almost 900 years. The Royal Navy would lose a mass of heavy units and experienced seamen. And even if the invasion failed, public opinion alone would make the entire British strategy considerably more defensive. Because the others, after demonstrating that it was possible, could try again. Also, that could bring in additional allies for Germany. I'll just say Spain now. In that case, the Mediterranean would be lost to the British. Even a German defeat would be a strategic success for Germany. Not attacking was the worst of all options...

@EdgyDabs47

Жыл бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 It would've been an absolute logistic nightmare for Germany. Contested naval landings are one of the most difficult situations in warfare for the attackers. Germany also had little experience with amphibious assaults. Britain was not totally unprepared like you suggest. We had sea defenses on the south and east coast. I could go down to my local beach right now and find WW2 munitions in the sand, spent in training exercises in preparation for a German invasion. There's a good chance it would've dragged America into the war sooner as well, i don't see how that serves Germany well.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

@@EdgyDabs47 Again and again the same bloodless objections... It's not at all about whether the invasion would have been successful or not! Strategically, even a failed invasion would have been a catastrophe for England. Because the ship losses of the Royal Navy would have been considerable in any case. The shock of the invasion would have had an enormous effect on the population and the Royal Navy's aura would have been shattered and the Empire's power in insecure regions (Middle East/India) would have faltered. The Empire would have acted significantly more defensively over the next few years. This changes the course of the war considerably. What would it have cost the Axis powers? No more men and material than the Balkan campaign, apart from the ships. But these were primarily prize ships from the victorious western campaign anyway. And because of that, the Balkan campaign would not have been necessary anyway. I'll write it again very slowly now, for those who can't read sooo fast: Not attacking was the greatest stupidity ever...! Now I almost forgot the Americans... If the landings begin in the 3rd decade of September, then there are still more than 6 weeks until the 1940 elections in the USA. Before that, nothing will happen across the pond anyway. For Poland, Germany took only 4 weeks. For all of Western Europe, just 6 weeks. If things go well, the Germans will be at Hadrian's Wall by the time of the election. And one more thing that should not be forgotten. With a successful German landing, all the British fascists will come out of their holes again...

Another book to add to your reading list should be _’The Greatest Treason’,_ by Laurence Thompson. It’s basically a look at the Munich Agreement with all the emotive talk removed. Thompson basically comes out on the side of Chamberlain without Charmley’s rather hagiography of the man. Looked at from his perspective, it’s very hard to see how any other solution was possible. The advocates of a short war in 1938 to prevent WWII simply fail to recognise that fighting a war to prevent a war is an absurd strategy and there is simply no case for it. Britain and France had no real means of prosecuting such a war, in no small part due to their treaty limitations and obligations. Indeed all the military advice of the time was that the Sudetenland was not worth going to war over and even the Czech government appears to have reluctantly agreed. Churchill’s talk of a grand alliance is actually pretty hollow and it all comes apart when you realise that he was in Paris trying to break up the Anglo-French alliance at the very time Chamberlain staring down Hitler and Ribbentrop in Bad Godesberg. In short, Churchill’s criticisms of Appeasement have been given far too much credence while Chamberlain has been rather unfairly treated. The situation was far more complex than pretty much anyone understands and has been exploited ever since by hawkish politicians clamouring for a bit of attention. It’s also resulted in a loss of diplomatic capability because politicians today are simply terrified of being accused of appeasement. It’s become code for ‘no negotiation’ and while wars are fewer and less frequent than they were in the 1930s, there is still much to be learnt from that time.

@AFGuidesHD

10 ай бұрын

because real life is a hot mix of diplomacy and characters who later trumpet the best narrative that fits them.

@thethirdman225

10 ай бұрын

@@AFGuidesHD In this case, I guess it depends on who leaves such a narrative (Churchill) and who doesn’t (Chamberlain).

@AFGuidesHD

10 ай бұрын

@@thethirdman225 "The second interpretation of British policy, which was originally advanced by the policy-makers themselves and has returned to the fore as a 'revisionist' view, is that British inaction before March 1939 was the inevitable result of various decisive constraints. These included military and economic weakness, the isolationist attitude of the Dominions and of public opinion, and the global 'responsibilities' which dictated the avoidance of war with Germany for fear that Japan, Italy, and even the United States would also benefit at the expense of the Empire. Chamberlain was thus far from gullible or idealistic in his view of Anglo-German relations, he was merely realistic. In this interpretation the guarantee to Poland is easy to explain. Britain was now strong enough to challenge Germany openly. Where before the 'realists' had had no choice but to abandon eastern Europe, they were now able to reverse the process. The guarantee is still seen as a revolution of sorts, for where before Britain had done nothing, she was now able to venture forth with military guarantees." - Simon Newman Have you read this book "march 1939 the British guarantee to Poland by simon newman ? very good book on the situation.

@thethirdman225

10 ай бұрын

@@AFGuidesHD Interesting quote. Furthermore, there was the matter of the French treaties. They had one with Czechoslovakia - ostensibly to defend her from the Soviet Union - and they had one with Britain, while Britain had no treaty with Czechoslovakia and so no obligations. So where would such a confrontation take place? Belgium declared neutrality, which frustrated Gamelin and he turned his attention to Alsace Lorraine as an alternative. Neither was very realistic because neither could have prevented Germany from invading Czechoslovakia in the first place. Scratch that and start again. The second problem was that no country was likely to allow French troops or aircraft to pass over their soil on the way t defend Czechoslovakia, either for violating neutrality (Switzerland) or for fear of reprisal (Belgium). Finally, the treaty with the British was limited to defence. If France was going to cross the border into Germany, she would be prosecuting a war of aggression and the treaty didn't cover that. While it;'s highly possible that the British would still have backed France in that endeavour, there were few of them and they were on the wrong side of the Channel.

@AFGuidesHD

10 ай бұрын

@@thethirdman225 "muh treaties" Governments, especially British ones, don't give a toss about treaties, they are mere excuses for war. The reason why Britain didn't in 1938 is because the French army said they would lose a war at that time. The USSR also could have come to the aid of it's ally in Czechia, but how ? It would have to invade Poland, if it invaded Poland then ironically war in 1938 would have made the German-Polish alliance a lot more likely and this is precisely what the Brits sought to prevent and successfully did so in 1939.

this may be your best video yet. excellent information, great presentation, 10/10

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

Worst

A very good video. While I still think Chamberlain was misguided into thinking that the promise of peace would contain the bellicose National Socialists of Germany and the Fascists of Italy, this video helped demonstrate why Britain and France would try to make peace when their own abilities to make war were somewhat questionable.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

If there had been a reasonable peace in 1919, then neither the Nazis nor the Italian fascists would have existed. Please complain to the French revanchist! If you don't understand that, I'll be happy to have another British Prime Minister explain it to you...

@hurricanemeridian8712

Жыл бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Yea fair point but they couldn't have predicted that back at the end of tje great war and I doubt they expected germany to recover from it as quickly as it did

@melchiorvonsternberg844

Жыл бұрын

@@hurricanemeridian8712 But that's their own misjudgment and therefore their own failure, isn't it? Why were and are the Germans repeatedly underestimated? Due to the very rapid economic development in Germany since the second half of the 19th century, one should have been quite clear about this. The German scientists were also on top. Just look at the list of German Nobel Prize winners up to 1945. In addition, a system of only 3 major powers had emerged from a system of 5 major powers before the First World War. The Habsburg monarchy no longer existed and Allies wanted nothing to do with the Bolshevik criminals. War had been waged against them in 1919 by all the leading Entente powers (with the support of German voluntary troops). This was completely overlooked by the Western smartass! And since England and France alone had barely dealt with the Emperor's troops, that was a deadly misdesign of Versailles. To parody a famous phrase... "Peace was too important to be left to vengeful old men". But actually, not all leading men in 1919 were soooo stupid. They just couldn't prevail. One of those who threatened such a failed peace was the British Prime Minister, Sir David Lloyd George. He gave a speech at Versailles in 1919 which, for a change, was of enormous political farsightedness and a ruthless analysis of events to come. Another clear head was the Chief of Allied Troops, the Marshal of France, Ferdinand Foch. Foch said of the peace treaty: "This is not a peace treaty, but a 20-year armistice..." He wasn't wrong once a year! But let's finally let the British Prime Minister have his say: "One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last , to compel restitution from its conquerors.To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland.” But that's exactly what happened...

Chamberlain is often excused as he was trying to buy time and avoid war. Britain had suffered major military cuts in the early 30s and a major review advised an increase in funding in 1933-34 under Baldwin. The faction led by the chancellor cut this increase to the bone, causing many of the problems later on. The name of this chancellor under Baldwin? Step forward, Chamberlain. He was a key engineer of UK's weakness in the 30s. A mediocre man, who made the world a worse place.

@StuartTheunissen

Жыл бұрын

Fully agreed. Tired of revisionist excuses for weak leadership. According to Prof Charmley (quoted in defense of Chamberlain) Britain should not have involved itself in either war.

@robertewing3114

Ай бұрын

Wrong, Chamberlain was the one saying that the government had dallied far too long, he would soon be attacked by The Economist for immense defence spending

I see Chamberlain as one of history’s tragic figures. An intelligent, capable, humane man, who was undone because he came up against something simply hard to comprehend.

@DeltaAssaultGaming

11 ай бұрын

An aggressive revanchist warmonger is hard to understand?

@AFGuidesHD

5 ай бұрын

@@DeltaAssaultGaming I mean Churchill's whole schtick is "lol us Englishmen are so quirky, facetious, contrarian and difficult to understand".

It's a perfect example of how hindsight is 20/20. Despite the fact at the time there was so much uncertainty and divergence of the changing face of the world, a lot of people just see it through the lens of what did happen, not what could happen.

I am Taiwanese, I heard a lot of argument of appeasement against China from KMT supporters in Taiwan. History repeats itself

15:53 what is that small hole in the US

@George83_Thomas

Жыл бұрын

Salt Lake in Utah

This is video is very hard to watch from a Polish perspective. The fact of the matter is, that in 1939 and 1940 france and Britain essentially did not attack Germany in the phoney which directly contributed to the disasters that followed.

@Carl-Gauss

Жыл бұрын

It’s even harder to read your comment from a Czech or Slovak perspective considering Poland contributed directly to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and France and Britain decided to guarantee autocratic Poland rather than democratic Czechoslovakia.

@darth3911

Жыл бұрын

Funny thing is if Poland accepted Hitlers demand for the return of Prussian land he probably would have spread Poland, hell he might of given Poland Soviet lands such as Belarus and Ukraine. That said Czechoslovakia stood no chance.

@Glassius89

Жыл бұрын

@@Carl-Gauss That democracy of Czechoslovakia was not quite simple, as it was quite a mean country with aggresive politics toward minorities and even supporting Ukrainian nationalist in Poland. Poland did similar things to Czechoslovakia with preparing Polish urprisings in Zaolzie. Western allies wanted Poland and Czechoslovakia to befriend each other, yet both considered each other as nuisance...

@aleksanderwielopolski8205

Жыл бұрын

@@Carl-Gauss Listen up, pal. When we in Poland say about ww2 as a disaster, we refer to the genocidal actions rather than annexations themselves. In this matter, you had it easy.

@warwolf3005

Жыл бұрын

@@Carl-Gauss Well you marched into Zaolzie in 1919 when we were busy holding off the soviets, so not like we started

13:10 I'd argue if Germany was busy fighting the Czechs then the French would be more willing to actually launch an offensive. And if nothing else a war in the sudetenland would likely wreck the Skoda Works and leave Germany lacking the industrial and military capacity for their blitz on France.

You're always smarter in retrospect. Of course, now we know that appeasement was the wrong approach, but how could Chamberlain and his government have known at the time? I fully believe Chamberlain was well-intentioned, and he obviously had very good reasons to try seek a diplomatic solution instead of going to war with Germany again.

He wanted to avoid a repeat of the millions of deaths of WWI, and sadly didnt realise he was dealing with a genocidal madman who wanted exactly that to happen

@againsttheleftandright4065

Жыл бұрын

"genocidal madman who wanted exactly that to happen" Ironically, this description fits Churchill way more than it fits Hitler.

@Rynewulf

Жыл бұрын

@@againsttheleftandright4065 what? Hitler set up the most infamous death camps of all time, ever heard of the Holocaust? but of course a WWII video brings out the neo nazis

@againsttheleftandright4065

Жыл бұрын

@@Rynewulf The holocaust? Never heard of it.

@warwolf3005

Жыл бұрын

@@againsttheleftandright4065 ... what are you on? There is this thing called holocaust

@againsttheleftandright4065

Жыл бұрын

@@warwolf3005 The holocaust doesn't exist? Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?

This is becoming my favourite KZread channel

I always looked at it that we had a choice between fighting Germany or fighting Japan (we could not fight both) We thought Japan a more likely enemy (as they were already in China). It was why we commenced re-armament with the Navy in 1936 before the RAF and Army were looked at

Neville chamberlain was a good man as far as I could tell, he wanted peace above all else because he seen the First World War himself. He didn’t want to send British men to the same fate and that is what people condemn him for. It’s true churchhill was needed, but chamberlain did everything he could.