|
Szilard -> RE: Did Neville Chamberlain do the right thing? (12/17/2019 3:58:37 AM)
|
quote:
Not in so many words, but its all part of the reasons for not wanting another war. The United Kingdom's wealth disappeared down the plug hole despite being on the 'winning' side in World War I. IIRC Britain's national debt started with the Napoleonic Wars. Wars are expensive and uncertain and so no sane person wants war.
So certainly the British had experience from 20 years before of countries doing better than they - despite 'winning'. But I don't see this as being an overriding reason per se.
If I'm not misrepresenting him, Tooze I think says that it was an explicit consideration for the British govt at the time. FWIW.
When considering whether Chambrlain acted correctly in the context of what he thought he knew, one element has to be the pre-1940 certainty he & most others had that Britain and France would win any war with Germany, despite any short-term relative military weaknesses.
On the economic numbers, it was a no-brainer, and it meant that he thought he was making concessions from an overall position of strength. The Great War had shown that economic power is everything, in the long term. No longer do wars get decided by single battles, no matter how disastrous - what could be more disastrous than the Battle of the Frontiers in 1914? Hitler's no fool; he's not going to go up against this reality in a serious way; some concessions will make him calm down. Etc etc etc.
Unfortunately, Hitler was a delusional gambling maniac who recognised the force of the economics but thought that the gamble was worth it, because war was the only chance, however slim, to save Germany from the demonical Jews.
It's hard on Chamberlain to blame him for not realising the depths of Hitlers delusion.
|
|
|
|
