Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Chamberlain

Discussion in 'Prelude to War & Poland 1939' started by bedhead, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Also there were some guilty feelings in the west about the way Germany was treated in the Versailles treaty which Helped Hitler to continue his mission. I Recall even the UK gave Germany a big loan in the mid-30's.

    Somebody asked about Churchill. He was anti-Hitler all the time once Hitler started showing his true colours. All the money practically to guns and army.
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well Churchill wasn't really in position to control the money until after the war started was he? Before that he was First Sea Lord wasn't he? That would mean the navy rather than the army as well.

    The naval treaty the British entered with the Germans in the mid 30's was in pretty direct conflict with some of the provisions of the Versailles treaty as well.
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    IIRC, the naval treaty was more self-serving as it essentially forced Germany to build a balanced navy. Had Germany built mostly PBBs, th RN would have been hardpressed to fight a fleet of such commerce raiders.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    It also imposed rather strict limits on the subs as I recall on the other hand the Versailles treaty prohibited them I think. Both sides definitely got something they wanted/needed from the treaty. For Germany the rather explicit refutation of some terms of the Versailles treaty was not the least of those.
     
  5. Milestone

    Milestone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    South Australia
    After the senseless waste of life in WW1 I don't think most rational people wanted a repeat catastrophe .What Neville Chamberlin did was to buy us time .In 1935 war preparations were put in place to protect the British infrastructure and pecure arms that had a huge impact on the outcome of the conflict .That Chamberlin said he had secured"peace in our time"was him saying to the British "people "but preparing "Britain "for war in "1939".IThis is my opinion
     
  6. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    Do historians think that Chamberlain's preparedness program was actually effective? I ask because in "Darkest Hour" Clement Atlee accuses Chamberlain of inactivity.
     
  7. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    You're right; Versailles completely prohibited submarines among other restrictions. The Anglo-German Treaty allowed Germany to build up to 35% of Royal Navy tonnage in surface combatants and 45% in submarines; the submarine tonnage could be increased if Germany considered it necessary, subject to "friendly discussion" with Britain.

    Before the Anglo-German treaty negotiations began, Germany had started building U-boats and designing panzerschiffen which did not even make a pretense of complying with the 10,000-ton limit of Versailles.

    I also agree with your last sentence. The Versailles arms limitations were essentially dead. If one provision could be abrogated, so could any other. Moreover it was done by one of the Versailles powers without the consent or even involvement of the others. And it was done for no other reason than that Germany no longer wished to be bound by the treaty. The rest of Versailles went down the drain shortly thereafter.
     
  8. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    That was the idea, and it could be argued that a balanced navy comparable to France, Italy, or Russia was acceptable; but the 35% ratio for tonnage in each category of ship would not preclude the capital ships from being smaller or faster than conventional battleships, while cruisers could very easily be the large, long-range raiding type.

    While a fleet of commerce raiders would be a problem for Britain, I don't think it's quite the insolvable dilemma sometimes suggested. For a start, it would make it clear that Germany was preparing specifically for war with Britain and stimulate the British to respond accordingly. It would be much like the dreadnought race leading up to WWI, which led Britain both to outmatch the German construction program and to firm up alliances with other potential opponents of Germany.

    Traditionally, surface raiders needed to be hunted down by other surface ships capable of catching and killing them, so it's sometimes suggested that Britain would have had to build a fleet of panzerschiff-chasers in addition to her battle fleet, and that this would exceed her resources. However, times were changing, most notably by the addition of aircraft to the picture. A hunting group comprising a fast battleship or battle cruiser and an aircraft carrier would have the search capability of several panzerschiff-killers and be totally capable of destroying the raiders when located. Moreover, these would be the same ship types the RN needed for conventional naval actions.
     
  9. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    Is there any Chamberlain' statement to the effect that he was "preparing Britain for war in 1939"?
    Because it was three months between the Munich Agreement and 1939, so he had to hurry.

    At that time it was known as a fact that France would be ready in 1942 (God willing), and Poland in 1942 (God willing even more). So the British readiness didn't mean anything, France was going to do almost all the fighting on the land.
    The British Navy, even if powerful, wasn't going to stop the conquest of France.
     
  10. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    I don't think there was any real expectation that the Versailles Treaty terms would be permanent. At some point Germany was going to re-arm one way or another. The naval treaties were seen as a way to keep a lid on it. However, treaties are only good if everyone in them is committed to observing them. Obviously, Berlin and Tokyo had no real desire to live up to their part of it. In fact, they saw it as an Allied plan to keep themselves dominant over other countries.
     
  11. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany. Prior to that he was just a member of Parliament, although in the past he had held various Cabinet offices. He gave up the Admiralty shortly after becoming Prime Minister in May 1940.

    First Lord is a civilian/political office, like our Secretary of the Navy. First Sea Lord (and others up to Fifth) are serving admirals.

    Churchill was also First Lord from 1911 to 1915, before and for the first year of WWI.
     
  12. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    The 1935 London Naval Limitations Conference pointed up nicely that war was coming.
     
  13. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    I think in 1935, without the benefit of foresight, one could only say, "Another war is certainly not out of the question."
     
  14. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    You're aware that Germany walked out of the Conference, of course.
     
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Germany couldn't walk out...As they were not participants, nor did Germany send observers.
     
  16. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    Shoulda looked it up first. Sorry.

    "On 18 June 1935 Chancellor Hitler signed a naval treaty with Britain limiting the German fleet to 35 per cent of that of the Royal Navy, while their submarine service could be up to 45 per cent or up to parity should it be deemed desirable by the Germans and the British agreed. Even most of the Admiralty staff supported the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which at last recognised Germany's right to rebuild a submarine fleet. Upon this signing, the British Government stated that "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard this proposal as a contribution of the greatest importance to the cause of future naval limitation. They further believe that the agreement which they have now reached with the German Government, and which they regard as a permanent and definite agreement as from today between the two Governments, will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval limitation between all the naval Powers of the world." On 29 February 1936, the German Government informed the British of their willingness to enter negotiations for a bilateral naval agreement. Britain had invited such negotiations with a view to incorporating the terms of the general treaty to be signed at the London Conference in order to prevent Germany from initiating a competition in types contrary to qualitative limitation."

    Dusty brain syndrome.

    London Naval Conference (December 1935 - March 1936)
     
  17. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reading Buchanan's 'Unnecessary War' I conclude that both Chamberlain and Hitler were rational at Munich, and the agreement was rational.

    Following Germany's takeover of the Sudetenland Czechoslovakia was beset by Poland and Hungary - from the book
    "By New Years Day 1939 German, Poland, and Hungary had taken bites out of Czechoslovakia ...
    In March the remant of Czechoslovakia fell apart ...
    President Hacha dismissed the Ruthenian govt.
    Hacha ousted the Slovak prime minister Father Tiso
    Tiso appealed to Berlin
    Slovakia declared independence
    Hungary, told by Hitler it could move on Ruthenia.... occupied Ruthenia.
    Hacha appealed to Hitler and signed an agreement which 'placed the fate of the Czech people .... in the hands of the Fuehrer..

    Not a shot was fired.

    And I read elsewhere that Hitler left the Czech govt. mostly intact.

    Buchanan believes that Hitler's takeover of Czechoslovakia was driven by circumstances, not planning.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  18. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    I'm reading Ketchum's The Borrowed Years... and I don't get that impression.
     
  19. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    That Buchanan guy must be the most ignorant historian well, in history.

    According to the Annex to the Munich Pact (between Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) occupied by the Czechs former Polish and Hungarian territories were to be returned to their rightful owners.

    That happened in Vienna on November 2, 1938, where the so-called First Vienna Award was granted.
    So both Poland and Hungary regained their territories with full knowledge and support of Britain and France.

    The only fly in the Munich ointment was the fact that the ignored at Munich Poland (despite numerous British and German promises) took matters in her own hands.
    Based on a promise made by the Czechs a few days before Munich - that they would return the occupied by them Polish territory (at that time they were considering arm resistance and wanted to gain Polish favors), and the provisions of the Munich Pact Poland demanded the territory was to be handed over immediately.
    And the Czechs agreed to that.

    The tiny territory (called Teschen Silesia) was invaded and annexed by the Czechs in 1920, at time Poland was defenseless and practically overran by the Soviets.
     
  20. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,254
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    Did you mean Pat Buchanan? I wouldn't have wasted the pixels on a response if I'd known that.
     

Share This Page