Neville Chamberlain beyond Munich: The real story

i think that Neville Chamberlain was a Fool to trest Hitler for within a year war was coming

Maybe not that bad for Britain, but terrible for Europe. The peace tactic of giving Germany means for military production and tanks that overrun France (just from pragmatical element, rather not even speak about morals of this), still seems like a huge naive blunder in international politics at best, and spineless evil behaviour at worst.

in the late 1930s no one wanted a repeat of the mass genocide of ww1, except for hitler and the germans, that was the political reality in france, britain and the usa. the politics in the usa were not so different than britain wrt to war, in 1938. the public was still traumatized by ww1 and the great depression. so, what was churchills motive in destroying chamberlain`s reputation, personal vindictiveness, maybe? churchill was extremely alcoholic after ww2

The Munich Agreement never failed. It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II. He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.

CHAMBERLAIN was a traitor who allowed Hitler to start the WW II / Munich- the best option according to many british history writers/ . You will be treated as aggressor if you will not follow The Munich agreement-- message to Czechoslovakia/. CZ. army could not defend country alone . It speaks volumes. Go to hell with defence of Chamberlain.

Churchhill was for Churchill and he was a dismal failure in military strategy

Alright, so Chamberlain overcame some difficulties in youth, an had an effective domestic policy. The fact remains that Chamberlain agreed to attend a meeting on deciding the fate of Czechoslovakia without permitting the Czechs to attend. One cannot be more nefarious than that.

A Yank's perspective: Chamberlain would of made a great Democrat in America- and I say that with highest complements as a lifelong Democrat. He was all about social reform and helping those that needed it, just as FDR, JFK, Clinton, and other great Democrat Presidents have done. As for the "appeasement of Germany", Chamberlain knew WW II was coming one way or another, so that's why he bought valuable time by making a deal with the devil (Hitler). SO in my humble opinion, I thinkk Chamberlain was very brave to start the UK's social reforms and helping the poor and facing opposition against it, and probably knew as he was signing the Treaty with Hitler that the Nazis wouldn't honor it eventually and be his undoing, but did it anyway because it was the right thing to do for the UK.

As we say here in the States, sometimes you have to take one for the team.

Just a Yank's perspective- and an admirer of the United Kingdom.

Excellent except for two things. Munich was not a failure nor was Chamberlain fooled, he bought an extra year for rearmament and public opinion - Hitler saw Munich as a disaster for him
Secondly NC died 14 months after he declared war not 9 months, 6 months after being forced from office.

Neville Chamberlin sud hv had the segacity to turn down the premiership in order to serve as a second man to any PM by taking care of domestic issues in Britan at which he was well adept. Hvg no experience of Foreign affairs, Strategic consideration & Military matters the Tory party & the people who voted for Neville C in a make believe fantasy world of expecting Hitler to negotiate after he had broken every agreement & acted militarily unilaterally in the Sudetenland, Ausria, Czech , etc.
The moment Britan declared that War was not an option, emboldened Hitler’ s appetite for aggression. Neville C’s worst action of stripping the def budget continually in the sure knowkedge that Britan would be unprepared to face upto a War & be forced to accept his ( Neville’s) “peace at any price”. ⚓️⚔️🇮🇳

the most useless man ever in history lol

I'm confused... how is he considered a conservative?

"If you have sacrificed my nation to preserve the peace of the world, I will be the first to applaud you. But if not, gentlemen, God help your souls."
Czechoslovakian foreign minister Jan Masaryk

They can say what they want and that's fine in the end not everyone thinks alike, but for ME Chamberlain will always be the coward who condemned 70 million people to death.

In the end, that piece of paper wasn't worth wiping his behind with.

I think it should be investigated if the state now and then is legislated with the Bible written as a story. The word immunity (Latin immunitas, freedom from obligations to the state) comes from a religious revelation from the middle ages, most likely from a pope to become lawless, and which has since been rewritten into full immunity to the queen, personal and functional immunity (legally, cannot be prosecuted for criminal act) to the prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court for law decisions and actions. I also think it should be investigated if millions of fallen soldiers in the world wars were elected by the people or not. The political exploitation of the vital ecosystem has now led to forest death (force majeure) how will it affect people's economy, etc?

I think the Democrat Party can be a consciously misleading party name with all parties belonging to the Conservative Party, as current political democracy and socialism can only be about going more toward the middle, eg. social democrats. The reason may be that the queen (head of state) wants to govern the people with full immunity together with the prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court with functional immunity, personal immunity for law decisions and actions, even with the misleading word professional politician.

I think the people should consider voting for a real democratic party with an independent state formation to investigate if the queen, prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court overall may be guilty of a violation of democratic rights with misleading elections, economic crimes, violation of human rights with class society for adults and children, serious environmental crime (force majeure).

Neville Chamberlain was the Munich man (1938). This Munich policy: give in, give in again, give in.
The whole parliament on May 10, 1940 will criticize him, starting with Atlle leader of the opposition who will refuse national union under the leadership of Chamberlain. turning to chamberlain shouting "Dismiss ! Step Down!"

Just watched the Film Munich The edge of war, whatever actually happened at that time, like all things I'm sure it was far more complicated than anyone knows. People jump to instant judgements far too easily, it's embarrassing how simple-minded most humans are.

The Right COWARDLY Neville Chamberlain

He was a good man, the warmongers ate him alive.

He makes a mistake which so happens to be the biggest decision in his political career and now everyone thinks he’s just a loser that hasn’t done anything it’s not fair to judge him based on one mistake you have to look at his whole career to see how accomplished he really was.

Docs like this are a little beside the point, because they do not give the background information on the big picture reality.
To avoid distortion avid history fans should analyse events according to how strategists in their own capital cities would view matters from the own perspective, and not prioritize information according to personal gut feelings often handed down piecemeal in efforts to distract or manipulate.

Here are the often-voiced "Top 4" of alternative history regarding what should have been done to avoid World War 1 or World War 2 from an English, anglocentric, or British Empire perspective:
1) We should have stopped Bismarck from uniting Germany, but own leaders were not bold enough.
2) We should have steamrolled own armies to Berlin in 1918/19 and occupied Germany, but the own political leaders were too soft, and thereby avoided a great victory in 1918 by stabbing our brave military in the back (which was the invention of Combined Arms Warfare, on a sidenote)
3) We should have carved up Germany into single states again at Versailles
4) We should have enforced Versailles by invading Germany while it was weak after Hitler came to power and openly denounced Versailles, or the "unnecessary war"-narrative according to Churchill.

None of these four alternative histories, or any other, would have ever happened. All of these seemingly viable alternatives are connected by a line drawn across history, based on London policies intended to create unbiased standpoints for London leaders in key positions of power and their historical habit of "balancing" the continental powers against each other. In a nutshell, preventive war declared by London was never going to happen never mind how plausible the alternative history sounds at first. Whatever alternative history is being presented to the history fan by their favorite historians or politicians, it wasn't going to implemented. London's long standing policies were not going to allow for it, and London was content as long as all powers were balanced. Note that if one suggests an alternative history it should at least be politically viable at the time (reality of the times).

Point 4 in more detail, with the others in the footnotes:
4) When Hitler started making Germany great again there was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced either, because after the communists in Moscow started growing the Soviet Union's power with the first 5-year plan in 1928, Germany was yet again needed to balance it out. London was not going to enforce Versailles. Paris with their defensive mindset firmly in place as signalled by the Maginot Line and the Dyle Plan, rather than the offensive Plan XVII of pre-World War 1, would not have acted without the support of London. It was neither politically desirable as balance of power, nor would it have received support from populations which were still grieving millions of victims from World War 1 (concept of "living memory"). According to the new leadership in Berlin, Hitler was just uniting Germans, just like Bismarck. Berlin unilaterally cancelling Versailles therefore suited these "corridors of power" London power players in secret, because if a continental power stepped forward to balance out the Soviet Union's rising power with a bigger army, then Great Britain wouldn't have to do it. London could continue to focus on its navy and empire. If German taxpayers funded the balancing process, then British taxpayers wouldn't have to be burdened with a strong, expensive, standing army. This was the historically perfectly logical thinking process to the balance of power advocates which dominated London. Those in the positions of government in London, who would have to decide whether a preventive war was called for or not, would have vetoed it in 1936 or in 1938. The reality for Churchill's "most easily avoidable war, by enforcing Versailles" was that it would have been torpedoed by a few London gatekeeper Lords keeping an eye on the balance of powers. Critical question: What were the odds that Churchill already knew all of this even before he came up with his "most easily preventable war ever" alternative history?

London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent as a matter of policy, in an effort to expand and protect their Empire. London was the only European power steered by policies which had the intention to avoid bias, and these policies were timeless: it didn't matter which unelected leaders ruled in the House of Lords or Foreign Office at any point in time. They were outside of the control of democratic order, peer elected and with veto powers to torpedo any opposition to the policy from within.

Chamberlain did not fail to understand Hitler's motives. Far from it. There were several meetings between the two men over a period of two weeks, from the middle of September to the early hours of the 30th, when the agreement was signed. As an illustration, the first meeting at the Berghof was a fairly clear win for Chamberlain. Working from the diplomatic principle that you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to, he wrong footed the German dictator with his first question by asking him what else he wanted besides the Sudetenland. Hitler was embarrassed by this and went into a tirade about umbrella politicians as soon as Chamberlain left.

At the second meeting in Godesberg a week later, Hitler went into a series of tirades about how badly Germans had been treated by Versailles, to which Chamberlain, recognising the irrelevance in relation to the Sudetenland, said very little. Instead, as an experience parliamentarian, he pushed Hitler on detail, of which Hitler had none. Embarrassed by being blown for not having done his homework, the Fuehrer left the room. Hitler came back the next day brandishing what was called a memorandum - really a list of grievances and demands - but played the charming mein host. In the middle of the meeting, Ribbentrop burst into the room and announced that the Czechs had mobilised. Chamberlain, in some shock, said there was nothing more to talk about but Ribbentrop forced the issue of the memorandum.

Chamberlain knew at this stage that the Czech mobilisation claim was false and turned on Ribbentrop. He recognised that this was another Nazi stunt and made no bones about it. Ribbentrop demanded they talk about the memorandum. Chamberlain retorted that it wasn't a memorandum but an ultimatum. An embarrassed Ribbentrop - ever the fool - replied that it said 'memorandum' on the top, to which Chamberlain replied that he was more interested in the contents than the title and left the room.

Chamberlain was the professional and Hitler an amateur, at best.

Does this sound like a cowardly, weak and naïve man who didn't understand Hitler?

A great man. And a very good and interesting documentary. Thank you!

He sounds like a good man! Thank-you.

A 'great man'? A 'visionary'? A good man only doing his best? Tell that to the Czechs! The revisionism is strong here. Eleven-thousand square miles of territory lost to Germany; one of the most formidable defensive lines in Europe lost to Germany; 66 percent of its coal, 80 percent of its lignite, 80 percent of its cement, 70 percent of its iron and steel lost to Germany; the way to south-eastern Europe thrown open, and a prosperous nation bankrupted overnight. As for the 'buying Britain time' nonsense, the facts belie that cliché: Germany was in no position to go to war against Czechoslovakia and France and Britain - not to mention Russia - in 1938, and Britain was in a much worse position compared to Germany afterwards, and who do you think used the extra year to better advantage? Britain? Or a Germany strengthened by all that extra territory and all those extras resources? Revise history all you want, but Chamberlain was a weak, naive, short-sighted fool who completely abandoned a country in its hour of need and gave away a huge chunk of its territory to a foreign aggressor without even consulting Czechoslovakia. Munich was a humiliation for Chamberlain, Britain and France. Shame on him - and anyone else calling him great. Stop trying to make weakness a virtue.

Chamberlain was probably implementing the right policy, but several years too late. In a joint memorandum of Nov 1935, Sir Orme Sargent and Ralph Wigram (though they were Foreign Office officials linked with Whitehall opposition to appeasement) warned "the ex-Allied powers should come to terms with Germany in order to remove grievances [of the Versailles Treaty] by friendly arrangement, and by the process of give and take, before Germany once again takes matters into her own hands."

However, by the time diplomatic feelers went out to Hitler (with Halifax's visit to Berlin in November 1937) he had already decided Britain wouldn't tolerate German hegemony in 'Middle Europe'. So when (in January 1938) Ribbentrop (Germany's ambassador in London) advised Hitler that no settlement with Britain was possible, Berlin, ironically, then began to foster England's belief that a settlement was possible 'eventually', because Hitler thought this might have a restraining effect on any intention by Britain to intervene, should Germany become involved in a local conflict in Central Europe.

In other words, from the very moment Chamberlain began to pursue appeasement positively, Berlin was prepared to 'string him along' for any short-term tactical advantage it could gain, because it had already discounted the very general European settlement that Chamberlain was seeking.

Not sure about the point here. Did the PM fail to adequately alarm the world and to adequately prepare the country against complete destruction, by an evil literally growing under his nose? Sure he did something good. Sure he was a good man. No one disputes that. The real question is: if he is not responsible for the near death of UK, who is?

i need to know wher did he LEAD!?!

at least he was a true english and not an indian.

Chamberlain is an example of why we hate politicians.

without chamberlain - we there would not have been a war time Churchill as we knew him in WW2, Munich had to be tried by Chamberlain the peacemaker - he knew Hitler could not be turned, but least have a go - gave us a year to prepare for war - (spitfire came along)
shame he was berated in Churchill's book.

I cant understand why Neville was being criticised for choosing peace over war.. I am sure he is resting in peace knowing that he did not send young men to to war to die.. I would rest in perfect peace if I was him

Contrary to the comments of the so-called historian, that Churchill’s book, The Gathering Storm, unfairly put Chamberlain in the worst light, historical documents surrounding all his meetings with Hitler, demonstrate how naive Chamberlain really was. Chamberlain was not only a disgrace regarding turning his back on Democratic Czechoslovakia, the PrimeMinister of France was probably more shameful, since France had a treaty to come to the aide of Czechoslovakia! This action helped paved the way, eventually yo the Communist take over of Czechoslovakia in 1948. When the two Western Democratic countries in Europe of England and France turned on Czechoslovakia, it paved the way for the Communist in 1948. It would take another 52 years under the brutal Communist, before the country would finally return to a Western European Democracy. Both Prime Ministries of England and France, were a historical disgrace for Western European Democracy at that time!

Prime minister Chamberlain was a spitting image of his father

Shows you that History isn't a simple as a lot people want to you to think.

Factually, no one can dispute the previous work of Chamberlain. His egregious error was attempting to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini. Even placating Hitler with the Munich Agreement, to gain time for rearmament, was a folly.

AW, BULLSHIT!!! YOU NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN APOLOGISTS SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT: 1- THE CZECHS WERE HUMAN BEINGS, 2- WHAT CHAMBERLAIN DID TO CZECHOSLOVAKIA AT MUNICH- WAS AN OUTRIGHT CRIME-(!), AND 3- YOU ARE DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE!!!

Munich was only the worst leg Chamberlain's leader. It followed a long line of placing business interests and protecting the Empire over the security of Europe. He never realized as he sold out Europe he was destroying the British Empire. Hitler read the measure of the Chamberlain and the world was plunged into world war as a consequence.

is interesting that the british critized Chamberlain for Munich , but priced Churchill for Yalta , Chamberlain only gave Hitler half of Czechoslovakia , while Churchill gave the US half of europe and the other half to the soviet union

I use to dislike mr. Chamberlain. However I now understand what those or his people went through in WW1. All those lives lost. I have a better understanding why he wanted to avoid any more lives lost

My poor opinion of NC is unchanged
He surely was familiar with Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,'
But refused to realize, as did the entire world, the maniac they were dealing with.
This clear blueprint was ignored in the name of peace to prevent another disastrous war.
Multiple chances were missed to stop Hitler in his tracks.
NC's most damming act was his handling of Czechoslovakia at Munich.
This alone would place him at the bottom of the list of great English statesmen.

If all this is true , why did he refuse to start to rearm in 1930's . When many told him of Hitler was not to be trusted and his intentions for Europe , including the French and Polish intelligence . I have never head such an excuse for this naive man . The simple truth was he was not street savvy !!!!!!!!

it seems apart from two exceptions of Conservative leaders [Churchill & Thatcher] who were leaders of their times, most other conservative Party leaders have been absolute duds.

Oh boy, i miss these days

Biden is just as stup!d.

It sounds like Chamberlain would have made a decent peace time PM, however in wartime, he was clearly unfit

revisionist claptrap at it's sickening worst. Chamberlain was smoking so much pacificist 'hopium' he couldn't see the threat. Dreadful malfeasance and incompetence on he and his cabinet's part. The last of the 3 great disasters of the 20s-30s in Britain - MacDonald/Baldwin and the hapless bully Chamberlain

What I find interesting here is that like bill clinton Chamberlain had a pay as you go policy. Clinton had the national budget out of the red and wanted to use the money saved to save social security. But then the supreme court handed the election to George W Bush and he signed it away to billionaires for mega yachts and more mansions.

I don't think this documentary burnishes Neville Chamberlain's position in history at all.
If anything, it corroborates the popular view that he was a well-meaning but naive appeaser.