If you don't understand it, I suggest you go to university yourself and get a Masters in military history.
The time to stop Germany was when it stopped paying the reparations they owed for WW1 and used them instead to build a military that was in violation of the Treaty.
That's a valid position, but I am talking about the decisions of Neville Chamberlain - not every decision taken by the combined governments of the allied nations from 1919-1939. I am not going to blame Neville Chamberlain. Germany stopped paying reparations in 1931 when Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. Before Chamberlain took on the role in mid 1937, there was also Stanley Baldwin.
Chamberlain tends to get blamed for the decisions of MacDonald and Baldwin, Baldwin gets blamed for the decisions of MacDonald? Why? Because MacDonald was a socialist, and Baldwin and Chamberlain were conservatives, and socialists write most of our history books. It's the 'Blame Bush' phenomena a few decades earlier.
There is quite a lot of legitimate blame to be assigned to Baldwin, and some to Chamberlain, as well - but for the most part, Chamberlain was dealing with the disastrous situation he inherited from MacDonald and Baldwin - especially from MacDonald. It was MacDonald who in 1924 as Foreign Secretary supported the Dawes Plan (and note that name - Dawes. It's Charles G. Dawes, the 30th Vice-President of the United States. For some reason, the American appeasers get ignored in much of the history) which softened the reparations regime of Versailles, and actually meant the US wound up indirectly paying a lot of Germany's war debt, and MacDonald again in 1929 as Prime Minister who was unable to block the Young Plan (worked out by mostly American financiers, Owen Young, J.P. Morgan Jr, and Thomas W. Lamont) which reduced them even further, and again it was Ramsay MacDonald who was British Prime Minister in 1931 when Germany stopped paying any of its reparations - because of a one year moratorium proposed by Herbert Hoover, the President of the United States.
Chamberlain cannot be blamed for decisions taken by governments that were in place years before he became Prime Minister. He certainly can't be blamed for them when they were made by American politicians and American businessmen.
He inherited a disastrous military situation in 1937. Baldwin had started rearmament but it was in its very early stages and it was going to take time to have any effect. Chamberlain gave it as much time as he could so when Britain had to go to war, it was at least - nearly - ready.
It is somewhat ironic that the Prime Minister who finally declared war is the one who winds up being saddled by so many people with the blame for the appeasement policies. And I believe it is unreasonable and I will say so.
If you don't understand it, I suggest you go to university yourself and get a Masters in military history.
Nice 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.
Actually, I do have a M.A. in History, although not military history.
And I wouldn't put this discussion under that category.
I see this as dealing with diplomatic or political history, not military.
[ The time to stop Germany was when it stopped paying the reparations they owed for WW1 and used them instead to build a military that was in violation of the Treaty. [
That's a valid position, but I am talking about the decisions of Neville Chamberlain - not every decision taken by the combined governments of the allied nations from 1919-1939. I am not going to blame Neville Chamberlain. Germany stopped paying reparations in 1931 when Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. Before Chamberlain took on the role in mid 1937, there was also Stanley Baldwin.
Chamberlain became the poster boy for appeasement when he came back with a signed document selling out the Czech's and claimed the British could trust Hitler and there would now be peace.
What is being discussed is appeasement and Chamberlains part in it.
Chamberlain tends to get blamed for the decisions of MacDonald and Baldwin, Baldwin gets blamed for the decisions of MacDonald? Why? Because MacDonald was a socialist, and Baldwin and Chamberlain were conservatives, and socialists write most of our history books. It's the 'Blame Bush' phenomena a few decades earlier.
They all get blamed for appeasing Hitler and not dealing with reality.
There is quite a lot of legitimate blame to be assigned to Baldwin, and some to Chamberlain, as well - but for the most part, Chamberlain was dealing with the disastrous situation he inherited from MacDonald and Baldwin - especially from MacDonald. It was MacDonald who in 1924 as Foreign Secretary supported the Dawes Plan (and note that name - Dawes. It's Charles G. Dawes, the 30th Vice-President of the United States. For some reason, the American appeasers get ignored in much of the history) which softened the reparations regime of Versailles, and actually meant the US wound up indirectly paying a lot of Germany's war debt, and MacDonald again in 1929 as Prime Minister who was unable to block the Young Plan (worked out by mostly American financiers, Owen Young, J.P. Morgan Jr, and Thomas W. Lamont) which reduced them even further, and again it was Ramsay MacDonald who was British Prime Minister in 1931 when Germany stopped paying any of its reparations - because of a one year moratorium proposed by Herbert Hoover, the President of the United States.
And you left out the role that Keynes played as well with his criticism of the reparations.
But why should the Americans get blamed when this was a European problem that they could have dealt with if they had the will to do so?
Chamberlain cannot be blamed for decisions taken by governments that were in place years before he became Prime Minister. He certainly can't be blamed for them when they were made by American politicians and American businessmen.
He can get blamed for giving Hitler part of Czechovalika!
He inherited a disastrous military situation in 1937. Baldwin had started rearmament but it was in its very early stages and it was going to take time to have any effect. Chamberlain gave it as much time as he could so when Britain had to go to war, it was at least - nearly - ready.
Did any papers of Chamberlain ever say that was really his goal-stalling for time?
Or did he really believe that each concession to Hitler would be the last?
It is somewhat ironic that the Prime Minister who finally declared war is the one who winds up being saddled by so many people with the blame for the appeasement policies. And I believe it is unreasonable and I will say so.
He declared war when he was forced to and over the wrong issue, Poland.