Munich 1938 - Appeasement or buying time?

[Felix/FFDS]

In reading from Peter Townsend's book, "Duel of Eagles", I get a new look on Chamberlain's trip to Munich, 1938, where he came back waving the "Treaty" that promised "peace in our time".

It seems that if anything, that "Treaty" bought some precious time for the RAF to go from biplanes to monoplanes, barely in time to withstand the onslaught.

The French Air Force, although far more numerous that the Luftwaffe of the period, would have been sitting ducks, and the RAF would have fared not much better, considering that the principal fighters were still the slow biplanes ( Fury, Gauntlet, Gladiator) that could not keep up with the He.111 and Do.17 bombers, not to mention the Me.109.

On the other hand, there were elements in the Luftwaffe that realized that they would be hard pressed to conduct a strategic campaign against Britain..

I guess we'll never really know what would have happened had armed conflict broken out over the Sudetenland takeover, given the organization and composition of forces at the time.

[ozzy72]

I think Chamberlin suffered greatly for the little bit of paper (Britains great pre-war joke). However I personally go with the "buying time" theory. If you look at the pick-up in orders for aircraft for the RAF and things like that I think Chamberlin was probably a realist and played the part he had to even at the cost of his career and reputation....

[ATI_7500]

The french air force were sitting ducks, since they didn't introduce their modern fighters fast enough and used older, inferior models instead, like the Hawk.

[ozzy72]

And don't forget that Germany had the most experienced air force in Europe! I still can't understand why they didn't fit radios to the fighters, the weight would have been virtually nowt...

[Felix/FFDS]

The french air force were sitting ducks, since they didn't introduce their modern fighters fast enough and used older, inferior models instead, like the Hawk.

Compared to the "front line" fighters the French had, the Hawk was, comparatively, "state of the art".  THe sleek Dewoitines, Blochs, etc came too little, too late.

[H]

Compared to the "front line" fighters the French had, the Hawk was, comparatively, "state of the art".  The sleek Dewoitines, Blochs, etc., came too little, too late.

Just enough of them to increase the number enemy casualties but nowhere near enough -- nor any really experienced Fench combat pilots --  to make the desperate effort anything near effective.

[dcunning30]

Although what Chamberlain did had in effect bought time, Chamberlain truly thought he made a breakthrough with his agreement with Hitler.  After Churchill became prime minister, Chamberlain was a broken man.  If his purpose was to buy time, instead of being so dejected, he would believe he had succeeded.  But that's not what happened.

[dcunning30]

Also, the Luftwaffe did have their advocate for strategic bombing.  But when Walter Wever died in the mid 1930's in an air crash, so did the concept of a Luftwaffe Strategic Airforce.

[C]

Whatever Chamberlain's reasoning, he bought time one way or another, vital for our survival as a nation...

[dcunning30]

But as I think it through, I'm changing my mind.

[Hagar]

You could put many different interpretations on this & get a different outcome every time. I never doubted Chamberlain's sincerity. He was a decent man which is a rare thing in politics & also a committed pacifist. I'm sure he would have been prepared to do almost anything to prevent war. The problem was that like many dedicated people he might have been too trusting & expected everyone to be like he was. I suspect he trusted Hitler to keep his word as he would have done himself. I don't think he ever contemplated an all-out war against Germany. I think the ridicule he was subjected to, & still is by some, was very cruel & misguided. One thing is certain. Everything he passionately believed in lay in ruins. It takes a strong character to overcome that & he did it with dignity. I will always think of Neville Chamberlain as a very decent & honourable man.

[dcunning30]

I never doubted Chamberlain's sincerity. He was a decent man which is a rare thing in politics & also a committed pacifist. I'm sure he would have been prepared to do almost anything to prevent war. The problem was that like many dedicated people he might have been too trusting & expected everyone to be like he was. I suspect he trusted Hitler to keep his word as he would have done himself. I don't think he ever contemplated an all-out war against Germany. I think the ridicule he was subjected to, & still is by some, was very cruel & misguided. One thing is certain. Everything he passionately believed in lay in ruins. It takes a strong character to overcome that & he did it with dignity. I will always think of Neville Chamberlain as a very decent & honourable man.

I never questioned his sincerety, compassion and decency.  But sincereity and decency alone does not make for achieved goals.  The problem with pacificists as illustrated by Chamberlain is they tend to act on their theories that if they take the first step toward peace, their potential advisary will recognize the first step of good faith and follow sute.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a theoretical world.  In the real world, there are bad people.  In the real world, there also dishonest people, there are evil people.  In the real world, if a pacifict makes a deal with a tyrant and trusts the tyrant will keep his word, then only disaster will result.

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.  If Chamberlain, the leader of England was going to negotiate with Hitler, the leader of Germany, he should have made it his business to know the contents of Hitler's manefesto, to know what kind of person he was dealing with.  And if Chamberlain knew about Mein Kampf, and still took the actions he chose, then he was a fool.  Sincere and honest and decent, but still a fool!

[Bombardier101]

In the real world, if a pacifict makes a deal with a tyrant and trusts the tyrant will keep his word, then only disaster will result.

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.  If Chamberlain, the leader of England was going to negotiate with Hitler, the leader of Germany, he should have made it his business to know the contents of Hitler's manefesto, to know what kind of person he was dealing with.  And if Chamberlain knew about Mein Kampf, and still took the actions he chose, then he was a fool.  Sincere and honest and decent, but still a fool!

True. Mein Kampf is illegal these days.

But when Walter Wever died in the mid 1930's in an air crash, so did the concept of a Luftwaffe Strategic Airforce.

BIG MISTAKE, LUFTWAFFE!

Still, Chamberlain was a good bloke. But still, why let Hitler take over any territory?!

[Hagar]

[quote]I never questioned his sincerety, compassion and decency.

[dcunning30]

I would have to agree. This is the reason that Winston Churchill was ideal for the job. They called him a warmonger but he realised that you have to be as ruthless as it takes.

How was Churchill being ruthless?