"The judgement that history makes is based upon hindsight and access to the full facts of a case. Many have attacked Chamberlain for what he did based on the nindsight of "we now know Hitler was evil." Chamberlain could hardly have known what we know now."
Would that be the same sort of hindsight that you and others are using to try and build the case for the use of the atomic bomb being wrong?
Chamberlain and the rest of the British goverment (including Chamberlains' tenure as CotE and later as PM) KNEW , with absolute certainty, that Germany was in gross violation of the Treaty of Versailles military restrictions as early as 1935, yet did nothing.
Chamberlain and the rest of the British government KNEW, with absolute certainy, that Germany was using the Spanish Civil War as a proving grounds for his air crews.
Chamberlain and the rest of the British government KNEW, with absolute certainty, of Hitler's teritorial ambitions in the East in Poland and the Soviet Union from Hitler's own speeches throughout the late 1920s and well into the 1930s.
What was Chamberlain's, and the rest of the British government's reaction to all of this?
1936 - Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain does nothing.
1936 - Germany begins sending military aid to Gen. Francisco Franco in Spain, in violation of international treaties. Britain does nothing.
1937 - Again, in violation of international treaties, Germany begins sending combat air craft and crews to fight openly on Franco's side. These members of the "Condor Legions," form the core of the Luftwaffe that savages Europe in the opening days of World War II. Britain whimpers, but does nothing.
March 12, 1938 - Germany "unifies" (an apellation for invades) with Austria, also in violation of international treaties to which both Germany and Britain are signatories. Britain does nothing.
September 1938 - Chamberlain travels to visit Hitler and discuss dismantling an independent nation that hasn't even been invited to the conference. Chamberlain bows to Hitler's threat to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia unless he's given the Sudetenland. Chamberlain fools himself by thinking that he can handle Hitler's demands, and feels that he is an "honorable" man despite a known 15 year record of thuggery, treachery, and deceit.
Britain signs over territorial rights to part of an independent nation that's not even theirs, with the understanding that Germany is now satisfied and has no more territorial demands (despite Hitler's record of inflamatory and expansionist demands directed at the east).
In other words, Britain does worse than nothing... Britain sells out someone else in the biggest Judas bargain since, well, Judas sold Christ.
March 14, 1939 - Germany invades the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain's humiliated, Hitler rejoices, and Britain, once again, does nothing.
Finally, amazing, at long last France and Britain actually do SOMETHING. They reaffirm the borders of Poland, but knowing full well that if Hitler decides to invade Poland they can do absolutely nothing about it.
St. John, hindsight implies that one should have acted differently based on information that comes to light LATER, after the events have taken place.
In Chamberlain's case, nothing can be farther from the truth. What Hitler was, what Germany was, and what they wanted was in full view before him and the world at that time.
Chamberlain knew full well what kind of man Hitler was. Winston Churchill had been the "voice from the wilderness" pointing out exactly what Germany and Hitler were since the early 1930s. Britain's intelligence services were pointing out the dangers that Hitler and Germany posted, and yet, Chamberlain and the rest of the goverment did nothing.
Even worse, in Chamberlains case, in the mid 1930s, he was actively cutting defense budgets knowing that Germany was spending more and more on its military, all in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
Had Chamberlain, Baldwin, and Ramsey MacDonald had their way, Britain would have entered World War II with no modern battleships, no aircraft carriers, no new designs on the drawing board, a seriously neglected army, no armor to speak of, and an air force comprising mainly state of the art aircraft. State of the art in 1928, that is...
Finally, we have this little toss off. I'll give you credit for reliability. It's ALWAYS tossed out as some kind of pejoration of America when the subject turns to the roots of World War II...
"and I seem to recall the Americans not wanting to get involved either..."
And your point is?
This was Britain's BACK YARD.
Britain's international NEIGHBORS.
Even more fascinatingly, just why didn't Britain ask the United States to intervene in 1938 in the Czechoslovakia crisis as an arbiter?
You're so quick to pillory American disinterest then, but seems to me that Europeans are today equally as quick to pillory what's viewed as American imperialism if we step in to settle EUROPE'S little cluster piles, like the Balkans mess of a few years ago.
Did Britain jump in to help the United States or Mexico in 1916 when the Mexican Revolution was spilling over into the United States and threatening the general peace of Central America as a whole?
Nope.
Oops, I forgot. Britain was desparately trying to clean up the mess that would lead to the later mess.
And when Woodrow Wilson was cheeky enough in 1919 and suggested that Britain and France NOT enact crushing and humiliating reparations demands on Germany, the French and British effectively said "Hey, thanks for the warm blood of your American boys, don't let the door hit you in the ??? on the way out."
It was American disgust with British and French political "solutions" to the post war period that, in many cases, were the causative factors of the American turn toward isolationism. Solve your own damned problems. Why should we have to send Americans an ocean away to die for a King that's not ours and a County we've never been to?
Isolationism made a lot of sense to a lot of people in the 1920s. Granted, in HINDSIGHT yes, it was wrong. But it wasn't as wrong as what Britain and Chamberlain allowed to happen with their full knowledge and acquiescence.
Finally, as for American disinterest in Europe in this period...
Did Britain jump in to intervene or arbitrate in the 1920s when the Central Americas DID start suffering serious political unrest? Did Britain care that the United States was attempting to stabilize the situation in its own backyard instead of worrying about Britain's back yard?
Nope.
On behalf of all Americans, thanks for the help.
Do us all a favor, St. John. Find something else to harp on, instead of whining about how the United States didn't intervene early enough to save Europe from the problems of Europe's own making.
