Any one that knows anything about history will recognize those words in the title.
Yep, the Professor’s history lesson has begun….( admit it….you know it was about time right?)
In the days before the beginning of WW2 Hitler was threatening to invade Czechoslovakia over the German speaking people within its borders.
The UK’s Chamberlain intervened with Hitler and came to an agreement with him…..when signed he return to UK and flashed the signed agreement and proclaimed that war had been avoided.
Was not so successful for not long after Germany invaded Poland and the World War began in 1939.
Ever since those days much has been written about the deal and the man….Chamberlain has been made out to look like the dupe of the century…but was he?
As we prepare to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of the Second World War, a familiar narrative has reasserted itself: Winston Churchill as saviour of the nation; Neville Chamberlain as the man who nearly doomed it. A new exhibition at the Imperial War Museum uses Chamberlain’s diaries to illustrate his inadequacy, while polls among academics, journalists and the public have consistently placed him at or near the bottom of the list of Downing Street’s occupants. But what if the received wisdom is wrong?
In most minds, Chamberlain remains the “Guilty Man” who sought, vainly and foolishly, to quench Hitler’s insatiable thirst through unjustified concessions, generally at the expense of other nations. The policy with which he is inextricably associated – appeasement – has become a dirty word in international diplomacy, with the supposed lessons of the 1930s trundled out with monotonous regularity to justify a hard line towards aggression.
Chamberlain, we are told, was duped into thinking Hitler a man of reason and compromise, a man who could be trusted to keep agreements. Even his slightly ridiculous appearance – wing collar and furled umbrella – seemed to sum up the hopeless imbalance between Britain’s unpreparedness for war and the ruthless might of the Nazis.
Chamberlain tried a diplomatic way to avoid war….I applaud his efforts….but he should have known the man he was dealing with before hand and a different tact may have been employed.
Chamberlain was determined to not see yet another disastrous war in Europe…..and in turn got that that he was hoping to avoid.