Neville Chamberlain (2 Viewers)

[Rob]

Yes very true,Winnie is a much loved (recently voted Greatest Briton)icon in Britsh History.However he had the same faults and weaknesses as all of us,he made some bad misjudgements and so is not universally worshipped as at home in the UK.

Rob

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

Yes very true,Winnie is a much loved (recently voted Greatest Briton)icon in Britsh History.However he had the same faults and weaknesses as all of us,he made some bad misjudgements and so is not universally worshipped as at home in the UK.

Rob

Yes, hmmm....Gallipoli in WW1 and The Soft Underbelly Of Europe in WW2 weren't too clever....But then again, I dread to think what would have happened if Halifax had taken over in 1940.
Often wonder if Chamberlain has been misjudged. Seems to me that he bought us a years breathing space with Munich.

 

[Rob]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

Yes, hmmm....Gallipoli in WW1 and The Soft Underbelly Of Europe in WW2 weren't too clever....But then again, I dread to think what would have happened if Halifax had taken over in 1940.
Often wonder if Chamberlain has been misjudged. Seems to me that he bought us a years breathing space with Munich.

Yes its incredible really that with the mother of all cock ups like Gallipoli Churchill not only remained in the public eye but went on to represent this country's resistance to Hitler and determination to destroy the third Reich.

(Supposedly Hitler and Churchill without knowing it faced each other across no mans land near Ploegsteert wood (Plugstreet to the tommies)in the Ypres salient in WW1.)

Rob

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

(Supposedly Hitler and Churchill without knowing it faced each other across no mans land near Ploegsteert wood (Plugstreet to the tommies)in the Ypres salient in WW1.)

Rob

Thats a new one on me Rob.
Always willing to learn something new though.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

As far as Chamberlain goes, I don't think that his role in foreign affairs can be viewed with anything but scorn. I understand, however, that by prior to entering parliamentary politics, he was very forward looking and did many ggod things so I wouldn't totally dismiss him out of hand.

Not sure Brad. Was Munich an attempt to buy time, time that Britain needed to build up her forces? Guess we'll never really know, but I agree that Chamberlain was very forward looking for his time.

 

[Dragoon]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

Yes, hmmm....Gallipoli in WW1 and The Soft Underbelly Of Europe in WW2 weren't too clever....But then again, I dread to think what would have happened if Halifax had taken over in 1940.
Often wonder if Chamberlain has been misjudged. Seems to me that he bought us a years breathing space with Munich.

Unfortunately Chamberlain sold out the Czechs. They had a small but modern army which could have put up quite a fight if the whole western part of their country wasn't given over to the Germans. A few early military defeats would probably shaken loose Hitler's grip on the German high command.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: Rorkes Drift / Zulu Wars K&C - Need support

Unfortunately Chamberlain sold out the Czechs. They had a small but modern army which could have put up quite a fight if the whole western part of their country wasn't given over to the Germans. A few early military defeats would probably shaken loose Hitler's grip on the German high command.

I'm not denying the Czechs were sold down the river. But just like Poland in 1939, the British and the French simply weren't ready to defend any other victim of Hitlers ambitions. Nor were they ready in March 1940. But if the war had broken out in 1938, then all sorts of unpleasant scenarios spring to mind. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Combat]

Here is an interesting "what if" story:

Churchill, researching his life of Marlborough, had traveled to Europe on 27 August 1932 for a tour of Marlborough's battlefields, following his great ancestor's march to the Danube and visiting Munich in mid-September. Here Churchill was joined by his wife, son Randolph, daughter Sarah and Professor Lindemann. Randolph Churchill contacted a colleague, Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl (a Harvard graduate acting as Hitler's press secretary) who suggested a meeting. Hanfstaengl wrote about this in his memoirs, Hitler, The Missing Years (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode 1957), quoted at length in His Father's Son.

Hanfstaengl attempted to persuade Hitler to join Churchill's dinner party at Munich's Hotel Continental, but Hitler was reluctant: "Don't they realize how busy I am? What on earth would I talk to [Churchill] about?" Hanfstaengl himself joined the party, suggesting that "Hitler might join us for coffee." It was at this point that Churchill made the famous remark: "Tell your boss from me that anti-Semitism may be a good starter, but it is a bad sticker."

Hanfstaengl sniffed at that comment, but was tantalized by another remark by Churchill: "How does your chief feel about an alliance between your country, France and England?" Hanfstaengl wrote that he was "transfixed" at this. (Remember, Hitler had not yet come to power; the quote sheds interesting light on Churchill's thinking at the time, already intent on preventing another war by a coalition that would presumably redress Germany's legitimate grievances over the Versailles Treaty.)

In a last-ditch attempt to get Hitler to change his mind and meet Churchill, Hanfstaengl excused himself and went in search of Hitler, finding him in the stairway of his apartment "in a dirty white overcoat, just saying good-bye to a Dutchman...'Herr Hitler...don't you realise the Churchills are sitting in the restaurant?...They are expecting you for coffee and will think this a deliberate insult.'" Hitler said he was unshaven and had too much to do. Hanfstaengl suggested he shave and come anyway. Hanfstaengl then returned to the Hotel and played the piano for the Churchills, hoping Hitler would arrive, but he never turned up.

 

[damian]

Churchill was a great man. But he was a man of principle. He could have made peace with Hitler and kept the British empire but he knew what was right. He sacrificed the greatest force for good since the Roman Empire to free the world. After the war Britain was too exhausted to play her traditional role of civilizer and peace keeper. She withdrew from Emprie and the whole sorry mess that we see today in Africa and India/Pakistan is a result. Just like the Romans left Britain and the whole palce collapsed inbto teh Drak Ages for 1000 years, so Briatin left Africa and a similar thing happened. Just look at Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and now Zimbabwe. Where before there was one Britsih raj we now have nationalist squabling nuclear proloiferation and Islamic fiundamentalism. In Zimbabwe we have famine and collapse. In Nigeria Shell just takes the oil and pollutes the whole place with scant regard for the locals. When the British Empire was in charge there were colonial administrtors, tecahers and engineers who built dams and roads and administered justice. They were concnerned that the locals got a fair deal. Spare a thought for what happended after the collapse of Empire. I think Winston would be saddened, but the rich world of Europe which now enjoys freedom owes a debt to the British Empire.

God save the Queen
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[sirsydney]

Churchill was a great man. But he was a man of principle. He could have made peace with Hitler and kept the British empire but he knew what was right. He sacrificed the greatest force for good since the Roman Empire to free the world. After the war Britain was too exhausted to play her traditional role of civilizer and peace keeper. She withdrew from Emprie and the whole sorry mess that we see today in Africa and India/Pakistan is a result. Just like the Romans left Britain and the whole palce collapsed inbto teh Drak Ages for 1000 years, so Briatin left Africa and a similar thing happened. Just look at Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, and now Zimbabwe. Where before there was one Britsih raj we now have nationalist squabling nuclear proloiferation and Islamic fiundamentalism. In Zimbabwe we have famine and collapse. In Nigeria Shell just takes the oil and pollutes the whole place with scant regard for the locals. When the British Empire was in charge there were colonial administrtors, tecahers and engineers who built dams and roads and administered justice. They were concnerned that the locals got a fair deal. Spare a thought for what happended after the collapse of Empire. I think Winston would be saddened, but the rich world of Europe which now enjoys freedom owes a debt to the British Empire.

God save the Queen
Regards
Damian Clarke

Pax Britiania--what a load of crap. Give me liberty or give me death.

 

[damian]

In Africa and India it was a Pax Britanica mate. Just look at the unholy mess we have today. I mean without putting to fine a point on things no-one was starving in Zimbabwe when it was a crown colony or even under Ian Smith. Now we have complete melt down. NortH America is a different sitaution so you cannot really compare the two.
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[Louis Badolato]

Our good friend Kevin (Panda1gen) and I had a series of long discussions on the subject of the collapse of the British Empire after WWII. He wanted to know why we Americans wanted to see the British Empire collapse so badly that we intervened on the side of the Egyptians over the Suez Canal crisis. I responded its not "We the People of the United States of America" who were so keen on the collapse of the British Empire, it was our version of royalty, the wealthy and politically powerfull, who wanted to replace the British Empire with one of our own (at least economically). It hasn't worked out all that well so far, and I tend to agree with Kevin and Damien that we should have left well enough alone. I don't see any real liberty in the places Britain pulled out of, but I do see plenty of death.

 

[Rob]

I must just say a)this is a very interesting thread and b)its refreshing every now and again just to read posts from people who don't tar the whole of the British Empire/People as murdering,pillaging barbarians bent on mass destruction and the imposing of Queen Victoria on every human being!.

So thank you Louis and Damian,i shall now toast you with a drop of Scotlands finest!!!

Rob

 

[damian]

Rob

There is no doubt the Bristish Empire was there to make a profit, but it was a two way street. The Bristish administrotors developed the place. They imported teachers and doctors and engineers from Britain. I mean Nairobi actually was a great place to live in the 1930's. Today These huge companies don't give a toss. They come in and mine the palce and don't put in any infrastructure at all. Look at Shell and BP in Nigeria. It is a disgrace. The whole history of Africa since 1957 when Ghana got independece has been one of strife. I am not syaing that there wasn't room for improvement under teh Bristih Empire but if Britain and France could have stayed on then I think Africa today would be very different. The African nationalists also must shoulder a lot of responsibility. They mostly as far as I can see furthered their own power. What they should have done is partner with the colonial powers. Look at Robert Mugabe. Ian Smith said he was a terrorist in the 1970's and the Labour party and the Swedes and the communists dumpld on him from a dizzy height. He was a terrorist and susbsequent events have proven this. I thisnk Ian Smith was a bit pig headed as well but when he was dealing with such a complete tosser as Harold bloody Wilson then it is difficult to know what else he could have done. UDI was a big mistake though. Today we have politcial freedom in Africa but very little else I am afraid. The thing about terrorism is that it comes back to haunt you. When the Horrendous sige at Belson in Russia was on telly a fe w years ago, some-one pointed out that the Russians didn't mind supporting terrorist attacks in AFrica during teh 1970's and 1980's but didn't seem to enjoy being on the receiving end of it so much now in the 21st century

Regards
Damian

 

[Rob]

I think thats a very fair and balanced point.There were some very bad things about the empire and there were some positives too.You also make a good point about the Russians supporting terrorism in the 1970's.Thats what you call 'coming back to bite you on the A***!'

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Getting back to Neville for a second, I'd like to recommend an excellent book that came out this year, called Troublesome Young Men by Lynne Olson, how a small group of Tory Deputies helped bring down Chamberlain. It's a great depiction of the Chamberlain Government and how they amassed almost dictatorial powers. Great book.

 

[damian]

Brad
I have nearly ordered that book from Amazon several times this year. If it is as good as that then I will go ahead and order it. It is also important to understand that a prominet segment of upper class Bristih society was quite enamoured with teh Nazis. Read Making Friends with Hitler by Ian Kershaw. There was also an attraction to the politics of Oswald Mosley and Unity Mitford who were openly supporting Hitler. That is why it was quite feasible that Briatin may have concluded a peace deal with Nazi Germany if Churchill had not stood his ground. I know a lot has been speculated about Hess, but he must have come to Britain with some expectations. I don't think Churchill had any choice but to lock him up like he did. It was by no means gauranteed that Britain would have fought on in 1940. In fact modern day fascist apologists like David Irving criticise Churchill for fighting on. They feel he should have sued for peace and then kept the Empire whilst giving the Nazis a free hand in Europe. That is why I went on a bit in my other posts about this.

Regards
Damian
Regards
Damian

 

[jazzeum]

Damian,

I really think it is good, at least for a Yank who knew a little but learned a lot more. The book also shows that there were a number of high society Tories who actively opposed appeasement and did what they could to criticize the Government. What is also interesting is that when Churchill went into the Government, all of a sudden he wasn't speaking against, either publicly or privately, the Government's war policies and that he had to be pushed to take the PM's job when everybody agreed Chamberlain had to go. Another interesting point is that after England declared war, Chamberlain didn't really want to fight and that is principally the cause of the phony war, not just Hitler's gearing up after the Polish conquest.

 

[damian]

What I find so remarkable about Churchill was that he was an old man in his 60's when he became PM. At a time when lesser men are opting for retirement Churchill assumed the number one spot at same the time his country and the empire were facing the biggest single crisis in 1000 years. The fact that Churchill made so many mistakes does not detract from his greatness in my very humble opinion. He saw straight through Joe Stalin all along. It is a pity that the Allies didn;t move a bit faster and maybe reach Berlin a bit earlier as Churchill advocated. But that is another discussion.

Regards
Damian
Regards
Damian

 

[sirsydney]

Damian--the problem with your thesis is that you are applying selective approval to how former colonies govenr and develope. If I read you correctly, it's the non-white former colonies that should have remained under the Crown's rule while WASP former colonies are OK. However, your own country had a brutal, corrupt, evil government to the vast majority of the people in South Africa (notice I didn't say citizens because the rulers didn't consider them as such). By your criteria maybe the Crown should have retained control of South Africa. I bet you a Rand that if given the choice, the ordinary people of Nigeria or Congo or Zambia would rather have their own country than to be ruled be Britian or France or Beligum.