Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Chamberlain's peace deal with Hitler" video.

Nobody has seriously tried, mainly because of that attitude. If we can’t get past the first hurdle then there’s no hope.
3
@kieranororke620 Churchill could have done exactly nothing about the March into the Rhineland. It was a French problem. Now tell me what the French could have done about it.
3
@MarkHarrison733 Yeah, much as I don’t like Churchill, I don’t buy it.
3
I have found it is increasingly a museum set up to eulogise Churchill.
2
In answer to the original question, 'was peace with Hitler ever possible?', the matter of 'peace with whom?' has be be raised. I'm not going into to the specifics of each country because the answer would simply take too long to write. The overall answer is probably 'no' but that doesn't mean that the result of the Munich Agreement was the wrong one. From the British perspective, Chamberlain knew full well that war was coming, probably with Germany and he was rearming as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the topic is usually clouded with absolutes about 'appeasement', which didn't play much of a role in this and the question of abandonment of Czechoslovakia, which is entirely debatable.
2
@MarkHarrison733 "Churchill openly admitted he was bribed by Strakosch." Being a researcher by inclination, I took the trouble to look this up. I notice it appears on sites such as Stormfront and I also notice that the name Mark Harrison comes up in connection with it while providing little or no evidence of it. I can find nothing to suggest that Churchill 'openly admitted' being bribed or that there was, in fact, any connection between this and Churchill's desire to go to war (if, indeed, that is an accurate interpretation). So this rather falls into the same category as the 'Jewish banker conspiracy', which is utter horseshit and not worthy of any further attention on my part.
2
Not that silly trope again. If the Czechs had fought it might have been a different matter.
1
@markbracegirdle7110 Please quote him.
1
@tomaskoupil5994 i recommend ’The Greatest Treason’, by Laurence Thompson. It makes a mockery of almost every mainstream perception of the Munich Agreement.
1
What do you suggest?
1
@ignatiusryd2031 What do you do in the event that all the military advice is against it?
1
@peterwebb8732 "Against what? Military advice is almost always to prepare so effectively for war that potential aggressors are deterred." I think you need to do a bit of research. ALL the military advice in 1938 said the same thing (even from the back seat drivers in America) - DON'T go to war over the Sudetenland.
1
@peterwebb8732 "First thing I found was that the Czechoslovak army wanted to fight. Should I go on?" By all means. This was not what it seemed. First of all, it's fairer to say that most of the Czech people wanted to fight. So why didn't they? If you can answer this question, you're in a much better position to understand what happened. But the Czech armed forces and her defences were nowhere near as formidable as Churchill later claimed. His '40 crack divisions' were actually 14, plus another 15 irregular and reserve divisions, all indifferently led. Her defences in the north were rendered irrelevant by the Anschluss. The quality of equipment was generally good but the leadership wasn't. "Or perhaps we can accept the reality that it was the politicians who cut funding, cut numbers and attempted to compromise until the military advantage was lost." What? There was no military advantage. Not ever. The treaty between France and Czechoslovakia was useless against Germany because it was designed to be used against the Soviet Union. Britain didn't even have a treaty with Czechoslovakia. As for 'cutting the funding', that's complete nonsense. All of Europe was rearming in 1938. "In other words, appeasement was made necessary by previous appeasement. That is your argument." It most certainly is not. I don't think you have much idea of what actually happened.
1
@AFGuidesHD Rubbish.
1
This is an entirely Churchillian view of events.
1
The Soviet Union (to give them their correct name) could never have been seriously involved. A peculiar nature of the treaties of the 1930s is that most of the pointed eastwards, particularly the French ones. According to a French military strategist Capt. Andre Beaufre, the French spent the interwar period signing all kinds of crackpot treaties with Eastern European countries. The principal idea was to beat up the USSR. But strangely enough that wasn’t all. But let’s have a look at how the treaties worked. The French had a treaty with Czechoslovakia. The French had a treaty with the Soviet Union. The British had a treaty with the French but no treaty with Czechoslovakia. All this was complicated by the concurrent Spanish Civil War. If Germany had attacked Czechoslovakia, France had agree to come to her aid. But how? How would they be able to defend Czechoslovakia against Germany? Petain suggested going through Belgium but everyone knew Belgium wouldn’t agree. Gamelin suggested Alsace Lorraine but both of those plans would have violated their treaty with the British, which was of a defensive nature only. How could France have defended Czechoslovakia? By going around the long way, through Italy and Yugoslavia? No way anyone was going to allow for that. The Soviet Union had the same problem. To defend Czechoslovakia would require them to pass through one or more other countries, which could not have been done easily. There are certain niceties to be observed, even in war. This was further complicated by the fact that the Anschluss had totally wrecked the Czech strategy because it exposed the south west border, rendering the Sudeten defences irrelevant. It wasn’t that there was any great fear that the Soviet Union would stay. It’s just that nobody wanted to get into cahoots with Uncle Joe.
1
@michaelwilliamson4759 Nonsense.
1
@feedyourmind6713 Exactly. And why, when Chamberlain was literally staring down Hitler and Ribbentrop in Bad Godesberg, was Churchill in Paris trying to break up the only alliance that anyone could work with? Churchill was a hypocrite.
1
@peterwebb8732 He was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Baldwin. In other words, Baldwin called the shots. Also worth remembering that Baldwin was something of a defeatist.
1
@feedyourmind6713 Wrong on both counts. They weren’t given the boot. They conducted and incredibly successful withdrawal. And it was in 1940.
1
@MarkHarrison733 Churchill was not PM in 1939.
1
@feedyourmind6713 Not at all. There was little German interest in chasing the British and allied forces off the beach at Dunkirk. I agree, they were defeated. No two ways about it. I just don’t agree with the way you put it.
1
@peterwebb8732 "Firstly, Britain is not and was not a Dictatorship." Yet it's funny how the pro-Churchill crowd believed Winston could snap his fingers and stuff just happened. Yet under Chamberlain, Britain was not a dictatorship...🤔 "To reiterate, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain was well aware of the lack of funding for the military and was privy to all the debates on the subject in Cabinet." And he could only do so much. "The unpreparedness of the military cannot have been a surprise to him, unless he was utterly incompetent." I take it that this is the main thrust of your argument: 'that he was utterly incompetent'. If you bother to actually read something specific about this matter, you will pretty soon find that, whatever Chamberlain's shortcomings, he DID see it coming and he DID do something about it. Try reading Laurence Thompson's excellent book, 'The Greatest Treason'. When you've finished that, read John Charmley's book, 'Chamberlain and the Lost Peace'. Now, I'll start by saying I didn't like Charmley's book but it does give a pretty good outline of how defence policy and rearmament changed under Chamberlain, so that when Britain was fighting for her life in 1940, her armed forces had what they needed.
1
@feedyourmind6713 "Having listened to the speech, Churchill only rationally accepts Russias presence in Poland as a defense line of their own against nazi Germany." There was a reason they stopped where they did. This was the old Russian border in 1917. That's one of the reasons the fighting on that side of Poland was nowhere near as bad as the fighting in the West.
1