With the stalled ceasefire deal in the Middle East I had a chance to think about another attempt to divert a war.
Note: This post ought to get the juices flowing by those that have a narrow view of history. I apologize this post was suppose to be written and posted on the anniversary of the pact but unfortunately events spiraled and I missed my intended date. Yesterday was the anniversary of the UK prime minister’s signing of the Munich Pact in 1938…..he has been maligned ever since and been blamed for the horrors of WW2…..but the question is was he wrong in his attempt? When I wrote about the US trying to find a solution for the Ukraine thing I inevitable got some rant about the Munich Pact which at best is an emotional outburst with little thought behind it. Please I realize it is easy to blame one person for the atrocities but read the article (it will not change many minds but at least you have the answers…then you decide if your conclusions are accurate or just wishful thinking)….
Seventy-five years ago, on Sept. 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact, handing portions of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain to popular acclaim, declaring that he had secured “peace for our time.” Today the prime minister is generally portrayed as a foolish man who was wrong to try to “appease” Hitler—a cautionary tale for any leader silly enough to prefer negotiation to confrontation.
But among historians, that view changed in the late 1950s, when the British government began making Chamberlain-era records available to researchers. “The result of this was the discovery of all sorts of factors that narrowed the options of the British government in general and narrowed the options of Neville Chamberlain in particular,” explains David Dutton, a British historian who wrote a recent biography of the prime minister. “The evidence was so overwhelming,” he says, that many historians came to believe that Chamberlain “couldn’t do anything other than what he did” at Munich. Over time, Dutton says, “the weight of the historiography began to shift to a much more sympathetic appreciation” of Chamberlain.
First, a look at the military situation. Most historians agree that the British army was not ready for war with Germany in September 1938. If war had broken out over the Czechoslovak crisis, Britain would only have been able to send two divisions to the continent—and ill-equipped divisions, at that. Between 1919 and March 1932, Britain had based its military planning on a “10-year rule,” which assumed Britain would face no major war in the next decade. Rearmament only began in 1934—and only on a limited basis. The British army, as it existed in September 1938, was simply not intended for continental warfare. Nor was the rearmament of the Navy or the Royal Air Force complete. British naval rearmament had recommenced in 1936 as part of a five-year program. And although Hitler’s Luftwaffe had repeatedly doubled in size in the late 1930s, it wasn’t until April 1938 that the British government decided that its air force could purchase as many aircraft as could be produced.
There is more on the history around this subject….. we should convey the complexity of history that can prompt us to reexamine old assumptions, ask new questions, and look upon one another with greater understanding. Kevin Williamson recently offered a masterclass in this at The Dispatch. His subject? Neville Chamberlain, the man most of us know only for having cravenly and catastrophically appeased Hitler in Munich in 1938. read more But who was the real appeaser? Chamberlain or Churchill?
https://dpyne.substack.com/p/churchill-or-chamberlain-which-british
At least read both links before any outburst is all I ask.
Be Smart!
Learn Stuff!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”