Chamberlain, Versailles and Appeasement (Again)

May I remind people that at the start of the war,Chamberlain (the appeaser) said that the aim of the war was to destroy nazism .Accomodation,compromise with the forces of evil was out of the question :the war would end with the LSS parading in Downing Street or the Guards parading Unter den Linden .

 

Neville Chamberlain, another politician....

As if there was no crisis in government in May/June 1940. As if everything was a foregone conclusion.

Great way to read history.

 

In may 1940 Churchill became PM at the mercy of Chamberlain :if Chamberlain had moved one finger, Churchill was out .In september 1939,Chamberlain said that it would be a war to the finish , he repeated this in may 1940.There would be no compromise with Hitler, neither with Germany .

 

While the rest of what you said may well be correct nothing I've read supports this position and much of it indicates you are wrong.

 

Till shortly before his death,Chamberlain (not Winston) was the conservative leader,and when he came in in the Commons, there was a big applaus, while,when Winston appeared, the Tories remained silent .The overwhelming majority of the Tories followed Chamberlain .

Source :Eminent Churchillians

 

That may be but it doesn't provide much to support your rather extreme position. I.e. Chamberlain may still have had a fair amount of power but that doesn't mean that Churchill was at his mercy or that the movement of "one finger" could see him replaced.

That said Chamberlain was clearly embarassed and upset with the way he had been played by Hitler and was hardly in a forgiving mood. How things would have looked a year or three later is another matter.

 

I think LWD is right on target, and to add to what he said, politicians are first and foremost politicians. For the sake of argument, If the British public was so weary of the war, it's costs in men and money, and the majority were of the opinion that a negotiated settlement with Hitler was the correct course of action, Chamberlain would be in a weak position no matter how strong his personal opinion. Politicians first and foremost want to retain power, if it looks like a particular stance will undermine their power base they will modify their stance. Few have the strength of character or "backbone" to stay the course, for very long, if it appears their stance will lead to a loss of their political position.
The quotes I provided earlier from Roosevelt were in order to show that while Roosevelt was saying one thing to protect his political base, he was doing another because he thought it appropriate for the nations safety. That works both ways. Roosevelt was talking non-interventionist while actively intervening. It is entirely possible that a politician talking unconditional surrender was not as entrenched in his stance as his political statements might indicate. Roosevelt made the statements he did because he had to placate the people until after the 1940 election, or risk having the politicians that were supporting him lose their seats. If he had spoken his true feelings and intentions, there is a very good chance he himself may have lost the election.
I also think while everyone here is making good cases from a militarial or economic standpoint, they are failing to account for the highly changeable nature of the public will. Many of these individual battles, had they gone differently would have had far ranging effects with regards to public opinion, public support, military and civilian morale, support for the leader amongst his generals and subordinate politicians, etc.

 

Others have already explained just how incorrect your statement was. I'm not entirely sure that you have even understood what was going on.

May I remind you, Chamberlain played by the rules, and wouldn't try to undermine the Prime minister during a war. He was an elderly statesman (70 by now), who'd put aside his Premiership for the best of the country, seeking a compromise in order for a more unified government to form. After a lifetime of service. Such a sacrifice is well worth a standing ovation.

Churchill had a very chequered history with the Conservatives, to put it mildly. A certain level of sceptism was to be expected

Your use of applauds to measure "finger power", ignores too many facts.

 

That Chamberlain did not try to fire Churchill is no proof that he had not the power to do it ;Roberts gives exemples that Churchill was afraid of Chamberlain .

An other exemple (from J.Charmley:Chamberlain and the lost peace ) P 211:The help of Chamberlain was essential/ P 212:Churchill needed Chamberlain's help and he got it /


Chamberlain got the almost inconditional support of the conservatives,while Churchill knew that the overwhelming part of the conservatives were hostile to him,more than hostile .

Thus,it is no exaggeration to say that Churchill ruled by the grace of Chamberlain .

When after Catapult,Churchill appeared in the Commons, the Chief Whip Margesson (a Chamberlainite) gave the order to the conservatives to cheer Churchill,who got a big applause: the first since he was PM,and following the parlementary correspondent of the Financial Times,the applaus was not natural but orchestrated : it was the work of Chamberlain .
It was also a warning to Churchill :if Chamberlain could order the Tories to applaude Winston,he also could order them to boo him,what would mean the end of Winston .

 

Strawman.

Post them please.

An example of what though?

That suggests that Chamberlains help was useful not essential.

Actually, based on the evidence you have supplied to date it is.

Your interpretation of events seems to be far past what the evidence actually supports. Given your posting history that's to be expected though.

 

Eminent Churchillians : P 162 : Churchill had no real option but to stand by Chamberlain,THE ULTIMATE GUARANTOR OF HIS PREMIERSHIP

 

Given your posting history,it is to be expected that your knowledge of British politics is lacking .

 

Even if the assesement is accurate it doesn't mean that he could easily have Churchill replaced. Just because something or someone insures that something will not happen doesn't mean without the support it will happen or even with the opposition it will happen. You really do need to learn how to construct a logical argument.

Possibly but you have yet to demostrate your understanding of it is any better than mine inspite of any additional knowledge you posses about it.

 

Actually, I'd say just the opposite. It's your posting history, LJAd, that shows in general, hasty, careless reading, combined with drive-by put-downs, that shows an incredible lack of

1) respect for fellow posters
2) deeper understanding

and shows a closed mind unwilling to actually discuss. Indeed, you seem just as pompous and self-inflated but with far less reason to be so, than Herr Guderian.

It would seem that you've read a single book on the subject, that you refer to. Well, I guess that makes you a most noble scholar and foremost expert on the era in question. How dare lwd question your veracity?!?!?!?!!?!

 

Strawman : no one is saying that chamberlain could easily have replaced Churchill .The question is : could Chamberlain cause the fall of Churchill as PM ? And if so ,could he do it easily ?

The answer is : YES on both questions,because I have a source who is confirming this,and the source is the best that exist = Winston himself .
After 10 may,there was a press campaign against Chamberlain and his supporters .

The reaction of Churchill was the following : he told the Labour news editor King on 3 june 1940:" If the newspapers are continuing with their attacks on Chamberlain ,there will be no government on 5 june.. If Chamberlain is resigning/is forced to resign,it is the end of the government ."
On 18 june,Churchill made his "Finest Hour "speech,and the Labour minister Dalton commented about the reception of the speech in the Commons :"The relative silence of the Tories is regarded by some as sinister ."

Even in july 1941, 8 months after the decease of Chamberlain,his supporters were still a potential danger .There was a reshuffle on 20 july:Churchill's PPS Bracken was kicked upstairs and replaced by the Chamberlainite Harvie-Watt,who was ordered by Winston to act as his spy in the Commons ."You must keep the flies of the meat . Iam the meat ". Who were the flies ? The Chamberlainites.That's proving that even in july 1941,Churchill still could not trust the Tories,which constituted the majority of the Commons .

 

Do you have any proofs that are contradicting my points ? If yes,give them . If no,inform you before writing nonsense.

 

I guess this explains why when Chamberlain died on the 9th November 1940, that Churchill immediately lost the premiership, as his guarantor was now gone...

 

Every post you make, proves my point.

 

Now you are demostrating either a lack of understanding of English or just a lack of understanding. If Chamberland could have Churchill removed then someone would have to replace him wouldn't they? So yes you were argueing for Chaimberland having Churchill replaced.

So far all we have for that is your word. You have yet to supply any significant support for that.

Perhaps but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That does not mean that Chaimberlain would have an easy time having Churchill replaced it means that Churchill thought he could work with Chaimberland and perhaps that Chaimberland was actually contributing to the stability of the government. One is not the equivalant of the other.

So now it's not Chamberlain it's his "supporters"? Were they a danger because they were his supporters or they were philisophically opposed to him? How much of a danger were they? In war time it's helpful not to be subject to constant critisism even if it's not very effective. It's also clear from your quote that some of Chamberlain's "supporters" were allies of Churchill at least after Chamberlain's death? How many were before hand? It's also worth noteing in this regard, sense one of the things we are discussing is the trustworthyness of politicians, that one US representative voted against the declaration of war on Japan. The rather convoluted reasoning was not because he objected to it per se but he didn't want to see a unanimous declaration of war. Just because a politician says something it doesn't mean he actually means it and trying to pull additional meaning from it especially with certatude is inane.

 

Nonsense