No, it was a polite attempt to tell you that maybe you might not want to debate this issue further with somebody who is actually quite highly qualified in this area. As you say you also have a Masters in an area of history, that's a different matter, but I didn't know that and I had no desire to risk humiliating somebody. For all I knew I could be debating with a teenager who has read one book in their life.
And you know this as a fact?
No, I just believe it as a qualified historian who has studied this issue in a fair amount of detail.
Chamberlain was not appeasing Hitler to buy time to rearm, there isn't a shred of actual evidence to support that thesis.
Which again, just demonstrates you haven't studied this.
If you want to see some of the evidence, read Keith Feiling's The Life of Neville Chamberlain, or Dutton's Neville Chamberlain, or MacLeod's Neville Chambelain or A.J.P. Taylor's .The Origin of the Second World War, or Gaines Post's Dilemmas of Appeasement: British Deterrence and Defence, 1934-1937.
MacLeod's, in my view, is the most persuasive and accessible, and I agree very strongly with this statement from it as being the guiding principle behind Munich:
We should have fought Germany much earlier before their rearmament programme had got under way, or else that we should have avoided fighting them until much later when the full flood of our own rearmament programme had reduced the ratios of German superiority. Strategically 1938 was about two years too late and 1939 was about two years too soon.
No, it was a polite attempt to tell you that maybe you might not want to debate this issue further with somebody who is actually quite highly qualified in this area Moreover, to tell you that maybe you might not want to debate this issue further with somebody who is actually quite highly qualified in this area. As you say you also have a Masters in an area of history, that's a different matter, but I didn't know that and I had no desire to risk humiliating somebody. For all I knew I could be debating with a teenager who has read one book in their life.
First, it wasn't polite-telling someone they should to to university to get an M.A. as you did, is condescending.
Second, moreover, it was an appeal to authority since you were claiming that since you had an M.A. that should end the discussion.
[ And you know this as a fact?]
No, I just believe it as a qualified historian who has studied this issue in a fair amount of detail.
So, it isn't a fact, just an opinion.
[ Chamberlain was not appeasing Hitler to buy time to rearm, there isn't a shred of actual evidence to support that thesis.]
Which again, just demonstrates you haven't studied this. If you want to see some of the evidence, read Keith Feiling's The Life of Neville Chamberlain, or Dutton's Neville Chamberlain, or MacLeod's Neville Chambelain or A.J.P. Taylor's .The Origin of the Second World War, or Gaines Post's Dilemmas of Appeasement: British Deterrence and Defence, 1934-1937.
And they say that Chamberlain was appeasing to buy time for England to rearm?
You just admitted there wasn't any actual evidence for that.
MacLeod's, in my view, is the most persuasive and accessible, and I agree very strongly with this statement from it as being the guiding principle behind Munich: We should have fought Germany much earlier before their rearmament programme had got under way, or else that we should have avoided fighting them until much later when the full flood of our own rearmament programme had reduced the ratios of German superiority. Strategically 1938 was about two years too late and 1939 was about two years too soon.
And that says nothing about Chamberlains own motives for appeasement.
Moreover, it is also only an assumption that war would have been fought had Munich not occurred.
The Germans might have backed down, fearing the combined arms of England, France and the Czech's.
The German General Staff was very wary of fighting another war with the Allies but each concession emboldened Hitler.
Now, what you are looking at is a single positive aspect of Munich, the fact that the English had an extra year to rearm, a very myopic view at best.