I think Chamberlin suffered greatly for the little bit of paper (Britains great pre-war joke). However I personally go with the "buying time" theory. If you look at the pick-up in orders for aircraft for the RAF and things like that I think Chamberlin was probably a realist and played the part he had to even at the cost of his career and reputation....

And don't forget that Germany had the most experienced air force in Europe! I still can't understand why they didn't fit radios to the fighters, the weight would have been virtually nowt...

Quote:

Just enough of them to increase the number enemy casualties but nowhere near enough -- nor any really experienced Fench combat pilots --  to make the desperate effort anything near effective.

Also, the Luftwaffe did have their advocate for strategic bombing.  But when Walter Wever died in the mid 1930's in an air crash, so did the concept of a Luftwaffe Strategic Airforce.

But as I think it through, I'm changing my mind.  Chamberlain didn't buy Britain any time.
Chamberlain agreed to Hitler taking over the Sudetinland for peace.  But just 1 year later, Hitler invaded Poland.  Now, if Chamberland didn't agree, what would Hitler do?  Not invade Czechoslovokia after he already threatened to?  I doubt it.  And once Germany defeated Poland and turned toward France, England was committed by a mutual agreement pact.  They had no choice but to fight alongside France against Hitler.

But anyway, I don't think Chamberlain's agreement meant anything worthwhile for England.  In fact, the opposite might have bought England more time.  If Hitler invaded Czechoslovokia, who knows how Russia might have viewed this event.  Perhaps Stalin would have seen Hitler's attacks eastward as a threat to Russia and engaged Hitler.  Remember, Stalin was an extremely paranoid personality.  Seeing Germany attacking Czech as a threat to Russia would be exactly how Stalin considered it.  And this means there would never be no non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia.  What would have occurred would be England sitting on the sideline watching the conflict in the east between Germany and Russia.

Quote:



I never questioned his sincerety, compassion and decency.  But sincereity and decency alone does not make for achieved goals.  The problem with pacificists as illustrated by Chamberlain is they tend to act on their theories that if they take the first step toward peace, their potential advisary will recognize the first step of good faith and follow sute.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a theoretical world.  In the real world, there are bad people.  In the real world, there also dishonest people, there are evil people.  In the real world, if a pacifict makes a deal with a tyrant and trusts the tyrant will keep his word, then only disaster will result.

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.  If Chamberlain, the leader of England was going to negotiate with Hitler, the leader of Germany, he should have made it his business to know the contents of Hitler's manefesto, to know what kind of person he was dealing with.  And if Chamberlain knew about Mein Kampf, and still took the actions he chose, then he was a fool.  Sincere and honest and decent, but still a fool!

Quote:

I would have to agree. This is the reason that Winston Churchill was ideal for the job. They called him a warmonger but he realised that you have to be as ruthless as it takes.

Quote:

I've never read it myself (maybe I should) but I don't know where you got that idea. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395925037/102-1142458-5784940?v=g...