https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-was-neville-chamberlain-really-the-failure-portrayed-by-history-1774449.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/6062452/Neville-Chamberlain-should-be-praised-not-buried.html

Let's game out your scenario though.

Britain tells Germany at Munich any further territory invaded will lead to war.  Germany annexes them anyway.

What next?

Here's the thing, in 1938 if he would have declared war, there was so little public support for another war, he would have been thrown out of office in a vote of no confidence in a matter of weeks if not days.  Their grip on power was VERY shaky.

After the experience in the Spanish Civil war and the role of bombers, the British basically had 2 squadrons to defend the whole of the UK airspace against German bomber attacks against British cities.  The RAF brass told Chamberlain they should expect to lose HALF A MILLION casualties in a matter of weeks if the Germans decided to bomb British cities in 1938.

Look at how badly the British Army got it's ass kicked in May 1940, it's ability in 1938, if you can imagine this, was WAY worse.  The British Army still suffered the biggest defeat in its entire history, even though it had been preparing for war at break neck speed since 1938!

War.  Like happened a year later after Poland, only without a year for the Germans to prepare, as they were also doing.  Problem is, I can’t predict what would have happened, nor can any of us.  Would the British people have revolted and caused a change in the government?  Would France have held up better?  What would the USSR have done?  It’s an interesting scenario, but precision is for the alternate-history writer.  What we do know is that what happened didn’t work.  Peace wasn’t in their time.

But, look, much of the indictment is also based around how he did what he did.  Threats backed up by force might have done something.  Hitler cared enough to use the agreement for cover for a year.  We’ll never know what might have been.  What we do know is that crowing “peace in our time” didn’t work, and a year later WWII started.  And that cravenly giving up others to try to appease a power-hungry dictator doesn’t work.  The popular opinion of the time, that peace at any cost was worth it, was simply wrong, both in the US and in the UK.  We’ve learned at least some.  The following mistakes have been different, but appeasement, at least, went off the table.  Unless you think we should just throw Taiwan and Hong Kong entirely to the wolves, and have pulled out of South Korea to try to get the Communists to back off.  History indicates that doesn’t work well.

Battle of the Atlantic for me.

World War II Special Ops has always been a very interesting part of the conflict to me.

The OSS, SOE, Jedburgh teams, Attack Force Z, SAS, etc.

Incredible achievements that laid the ground work for modern special operations.

This is my dad in Tokyo in the fall of 1945. He was in the 2nd Cav.

Attached File


His brother served in the army infantry in the Philippines. Several of my other uncles also served during WW II.

You sure about that?  Then why did Hitler even slow down?  If he was more prepared then, why didn’t he just get it over with?  Why did the German Army and Navy want even MORE time to prepare, and think attacking in ‘39 was too early?  If you’re right, waiting a year bought Hitler nothing but more pain, and he already was determined to do what he did.  I question the idea the British and French couldn’t have put up a fight -  why were Hitler’s generals wanting to wait if they knew they had superiority?  That doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think Chamberlain wanted war, for good reason, but if they weren’t ready in ‘38...what were they waiting for?  The Conservatives were in power (or had the whip hand) when Hitler took power in ‘33, openly started rearming in ‘35, remilitarized the Rhineland in ‘36 - and, might I add, flagrantly ignored the Treaty of Versailles.  Why start rearming in ‘38 while ignoring everything else Hitler had been doing?  If you are right, I’d damn him even more: he had the foresight to see the Nazis wouldn’t obey treaties, but simply ignored other flagrant violations until the last minute.  That’s not impressive, it’s too little, too late.

It is unbelievable how fast our Navy was built. I'm sure it wasn't anywhere near fast enough for those waiting on it though.

Look dude, it's very apparent that you didn't think through your position on this subject.  Now you are doubling down.

How does Britain prosecute a war against Germany in 1938:

1) Without a modern air force

2)  With an Army of only about 200,000 men.

At this point in 1938, with reserves the Germans could field an Army of about 1.7 million men.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/3490298/German-Armys-strength-now-51-divisions-Nov-30-1938.html

3)  Where does Britain land the army if the French, Belgians and Dutch tell the British to sod off.  Which they would have.

By September 1939 the British Army more than doubled in size.  The RAF has 20 times more modern fighter aircraft.

Facts and shit.

Look I used to have this opinion, then someone on here brought up this point, that Chamberlain didn't have a choice.  I did my own research and realized I was very wrong about this.

Look, dude, you miss my point.  Why did Chamberlain suddenly get religion about building the military then and not any time before that.  Hitler had been pushing for years by then.  Why, all of a sudden, did he decide this was the time to build things up?  You claim he made that decision in ‘38.  And was a genius for that.  I’m questioning your logic.  I get the idea, it’s nice, why didn’t the man do something earlier.  You make it sound like flat out dereliction of duty on the part of him and the earlier governments while this was happening.  That makes it sound worse.  Scrambling at the last minute to deal with something that was pretty open for years is idiotic.

Hitler wasn't seen as a bad guy in 1938.

You have no idea how much the populations of Europe were totally opposed to another war.  Across all political parties in ALL countries, even in September 1939.

Entirely true.  What changed?  Why was Chamberlain right in ‘38 and wrong in ‘37, ‘36, ‘35, etc.? If you want to claim Chamberlain was a hero, why ignore his lack of action earlier.  Why, if he thought things needed to change, could he act after “peace in our time”, but not before?  I’m partially skeptical of giving credit to people who partially clean up messes they’re complicit in.  Ie, Harry Truman screwed up royally when his Secretary of State Acheson left Korea off a list of countries the US would protect, and no one corrected this.  The Russians and North Koreans militarized while the US had 200-300 troops in country and wouldn’t give the South Koreans tanks.  Fighting the Korean War doesn’t mitigate the disaster that came about because of Truman’s mistakes.  I hardly call him a “hero” for getting the UN involved and turning the commies back.

Yeah, read the article in Time.  It’s hardly complementary.  And I do know.  They hated the idea with a passion.  The US had no desire to bother with Europe ever again.  But it’s the job of politicians to try to make up for their population’s failings.  Just because Chamberlain made a last-minute desperate attempt to stop a situation that was building for years and ignored for years doesn’t mean he deserves credit.  Last minute build-ups are nice.  Keeping them from being necessary was his damn job.

How the happenings and effects of WW1 affected WW2. Hitler never learned Bismark’s lesson “keep on good terms with Russia”.

Everyone came home from WW1 and said never again.

The British Army suffered 60,000 casualties in the first 12 hours of the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

When the Germans began the Ludendorff offensive in 1918, they dropped 1.1 million artillery shells on the allied lines in 5 hours.

The massive psychological scar of WW1 was engrained in everyone.

WW2 happened because WW1 made any pre-emptive action politically impossible.

Any kind of action against Hitler by the British before 1938 is pure fantasy.  Remember who was the British King in 1936.  Even Churchill during this time spoke favourably of Hitler:  “I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.”

It sounds crazy today, but back then he wasn't seen as a bad guy.  All of the world was in the depths of the Great Depression, under Hitler, Germany was the only country that had seemed to come out of it.  He was seen by a lot people in Britain, France and the US as a person to emulate economically.  People don't think having debt free currency be like it is, but it do.

If a person is to be completely impartial and objective, the Treaty of Versailles wasn't exactly peace with honour for the Germans.  The Germans signed an Armistice in the railroad car to end WW1, not a surrender.  BIG DIFFERENCE.

When the Germans began taking back parts of what were Germany before they were taken away by the Treaty of Versailles, a LOT people simply didn't see much of an issue with it as many people felt the Treaty of Versailles was unduly harsh on the Germans.

Even British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald was happy when the Germans remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, because he felt the French had pushed to be too hard on the Germans.  He even said publicly he was glad someone had taught the French a lesson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

You also have to remember in the 1930s, Germany did not have this boogie man status in the psyche of British people.  We had only fought them once in our history and they fought hard and with honour.  Those dirty Frenchmen who tried to quit during Great War were still viewed by the majority of the British people as the "old enemy".

Interestingly, during the 1930s, the Royal Navy, the most powerful of the British armed services, thought their most likely future war was going to be with the United States.  Guess what the US Navy was thinking the same thing.  Britain traditionally fought countries who were building navies.  The US was building one like crazy during the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

Germany and before the German / Prussian states, had before WW1, been a friend and ally of Britain.  Britain needed the Germans at Waterloo.

France and the United States had been enemies of Britain for a LONG time and had only recently become "friends".

If history were black and white it would be so much easier, but it isn't.

@Dominion21

42nd Infantry Rainbow Division
Condit

North Africa

The French Mutinies of 1917?
They did not quit fighting the war.
They simply refused to be used as bullet-sponges in useless attacks in battles that never gained anything but their deaths.
They demanded that leadership and tactics change to prevent useless deaths, like at Verdun and the Somme. This being immediately after the failed Nivelle Offensive.
They were tired of being used as cannon fodder and machine gun targets.

The BEF leadership were scared shitless that their own forces would emulate them.
After all, it was the British way to send wave-after-wave of men over the top in human-wave frontal attacks to gain nothing but their deaths, like the first, second, and third waves at the Battle of the Somme.
The British general staff were scared that they would be pointed out as incompetent leaders that have caused the useless deaths of a few hundred-thousand their own troops. Which was and still is the truth.
More importantly, they were afraid they would be be publicly declared incompetent and publicly replaced.

Could you imagine Haig (whose own troops called him "The Butcher of the Somme") trying to publicly improve the morale of the BEF?
After all, the BEF was being affected by the same morale crisis that the French army was having.
His answer concerning the BEF "in relation to the French Situation" was, "Shut up and follow orders, or face a firing squad".
As this was all happening, he was planning an offensive that would attack out of Ypres. Yes, that Battle of Passchendaele.

Why do you think the British wanted us in the war so badly?
They wanted to use our troops as replacements for theirs, under their leadership.
They were absolutely shocked when Pershing told them no.

Here's some videos on the French Mutinies:
[youtube]T6haP4AQfhQ?list=PLvSzCTVndaIe_DgELjTaQSzh8tfLdyewH[/youtube]





ETA: The real funny part about this particular chapter in WW1, was the reactions of the different combatant countries.
The British threatened that anyone who attempts mutiny will get a summary court-martial and be executed.
The Americans were just confused about the whole situation, as they didn't have any real information yet.
The Germans, who you would think would take immediate action against the sections of the front line that were in mutiny, realized they had the exact same morale issues, and immediately tended to the morale of their troops.

Ah - thanks.  Different soldiers; my uncle was in the 3rd Infantry Division; Rock of the Marne.

He also participated in the liberation of one of the Dachau sub-camps (of which there were several).

As far as the main Dachau camp liberation:  there is ample information on the events of that day and the controversy surrounding the prisoners executed. Interesting stuff.