Neville Chamberlain Appeasement World War II

Also, dont forget that many in Britain believed German territotial claims to be valid and that ultimately Chamberlains delaying of war by at least a year, enabled Britain to equip itself (militarily, propaganda, etc) for any future conflict. A delay that was critically important as it turned out.

Chamberlains 1938 visits to Germany also highlighted that much of the German populace wished an avoidance of conflict too.

Chamberlain can't be criticised for avoiding conflict and then blamed for starting it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." A rather common sense notion that has been validated throughout the history of humankind, and yet we continue to keep ourselves at a distance from this truth of human nature.

Chamberlain was a good man. I am not blaming him for being apathetic, I am not blaming him for being lazy. I am blaming him for his ignorance of history. Appeasement always end in either surrender by the appeaser or war.

Appeasement was not a policy invented by Chamberlain, he was only continuing a British strategy of appeasement that had been adopted by previous British governments, previous British PMs and importantly, welcomed by the British public

It is easy in hindsight to criticise appeasement, when the actuality is that the majority of the British population (politicians, public, press, business, etc) at the time wished everything done to avoid conflict after the horrors of WW1.

Fool, are you listening to me fool? Because it sounds like you read what you want to read even when it's not there, fool. I didn't say appeasement was a policy invented by Chamberlain. Are you following so far fool? I didn't say he was the only one to be blamed. Fool, I merely said his ignorance of history coupled with the failure of his policies contributed to the buildup of WW2. Schmuck are you following me?

There was no right answer for Chamberlain, Britain would have been owned. The bad peace screwed the Czechs but gave the UK precious time to get the ball rolling on mobilization...

@HapaLife

Bull.

Great argument there historyvideos...

Last time i checked attacking the Germans would also have resulted in a war. Can you really blame him for not wanting to risk another great war after having already lived through a whole world war just 20 years prior?

Yes I can blame him. I do not deny his good intentions, but good intentions mean nothing if the end has the completely opposite results. It wasn't just England either, France had the opportunity on many occasions to challenge Hitler's bold affronts. When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, Hitler admitted later that if France had acted he would have had to flee with his tail tucked between his legs.

Again, I do not deny the intentions, but when this escalation is allowed the result is disaster.