Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Hitler's Bodygaurd
9 Answers
I was watching a programme , entitled as above .
There were Generals close to Hitler who were prepared to assasinate him at the time he was threatening to go into Czechoslavakia , but required the backing / support of the British and French .
They recognised that Hitler's ambitions were misguided , but could not get the support from the British .
Even the British Attache himself , Mason McFarlane was prepared to assasinate Hitler , but Chamberlain would not approve this .
Instead , Chamberlain thought he could negotiate with Hitler , and met with him on two occasions , resulting in an agreement to allow him to take over an area of the country .- an agreement which Hitler never adhered to and subsequently went unto invading the country.
Is it fair to describe Chamberlain as a failed Apeaser and Hitler's ' body gaurd '.- as the programme described him ?
Is it likely that if Hitler was assasinated , Poland would have been invaded , starting WW2 ?
.
There were Generals close to Hitler who were prepared to assasinate him at the time he was threatening to go into Czechoslavakia , but required the backing / support of the British and French .
They recognised that Hitler's ambitions were misguided , but could not get the support from the British .
Even the British Attache himself , Mason McFarlane was prepared to assasinate Hitler , but Chamberlain would not approve this .
Instead , Chamberlain thought he could negotiate with Hitler , and met with him on two occasions , resulting in an agreement to allow him to take over an area of the country .- an agreement which Hitler never adhered to and subsequently went unto invading the country.
Is it fair to describe Chamberlain as a failed Apeaser and Hitler's ' body gaurd '.- as the programme described him ?
Is it likely that if Hitler was assasinated , Poland would have been invaded , starting WW2 ?
.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BertiWooster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't see where French and/or British backing would have done them any good. Even if either or both countries had promised to invade in the event of an assassination (to protect the perpetrators) Nazis close to Hitler would probably have retaliated long before any support could have been in place. Conversely if the plot had failed (as in the von Stauffenberg bomb plot) then any evidence of Franco- British involvement would have been made public with inevitable condemnation from the League of Nations and the possible/ probable alienation of potential allies such as the USA. It might also have precipitated the opening of hostilities against France (at least). I can see why Chamberlain thought it was a very bad idea.
Warning long answer may be coming.
Firstly appeasement was a very popular policy in Britain, the British had no appetite for another war with Germany, furthermore Chamberlain knew full well that we were in no position to prosecute a foreign war, we weren't ready in 1938, we weren't ready in 1939, 1940, 1941 or for most of 1942!
Added to that (often terribly overlooked) France was bound by treaty to guarantee Czechoslovakia's borders, a treaty it had no intention of honouring, the reason being (as Chamberlain was all too aware) was that France was on the brink of collapse (read Chamberlain's letter to his sister prior to Munich), the British public would never have supported a war "in Germany's backyard" about a group of people who are all in agreeance on the matter (best as I can remember the quote).
Firstly appeasement was a very popular policy in Britain, the British had no appetite for another war with Germany, furthermore Chamberlain knew full well that we were in no position to prosecute a foreign war, we weren't ready in 1938, we weren't ready in 1939, 1940, 1941 or for most of 1942!
Added to that (often terribly overlooked) France was bound by treaty to guarantee Czechoslovakia's borders, a treaty it had no intention of honouring, the reason being (as Chamberlain was all too aware) was that France was on the brink of collapse (read Chamberlain's letter to his sister prior to Munich), the British public would never have supported a war "in Germany's backyard" about a group of people who are all in agreeance on the matter (best as I can remember the quote).
Chamberlain talked peace but prepared for war (see the date of the formation of the first Spitfire squadron and also see the improvements to civilian air defence between the Munich agreement and the outbreak of the war).
Hitler was unpopular with his generals (well apart from Keitl) he ousted many of his detractors in spurious accusations of homosexuality or their wive's sexual improprierty, Sir Neville Henderson (no fan of Chamberlain) was approached by many of the generals concerned (or at least their representitives) to see if we "could do something about Hitler" to which he always replied "if you do something about Hitler, then maybe we can help you."
We needed the generals to act first, but with every success that became harder and harder to achieve.
You have to also consider the historical and political consequences of an earlier war, if we had attacked Germany over the Ruhr or Czechoslovakia, how would history have recorded it?
When the war broke out, the one thing that all historians can agree on is that we did not cause the outbreak of hostilities, the blood of WW2's dead does not drip from our hands.
Hitler was unpopular with his generals (well apart from Keitl) he ousted many of his detractors in spurious accusations of homosexuality or their wive's sexual improprierty, Sir Neville Henderson (no fan of Chamberlain) was approached by many of the generals concerned (or at least their representitives) to see if we "could do something about Hitler" to which he always replied "if you do something about Hitler, then maybe we can help you."
We needed the generals to act first, but with every success that became harder and harder to achieve.
You have to also consider the historical and political consequences of an earlier war, if we had attacked Germany over the Ruhr or Czechoslovakia, how would history have recorded it?
When the war broke out, the one thing that all historians can agree on is that we did not cause the outbreak of hostilities, the blood of WW2's dead does not drip from our hands.
The first Spitfire prototype flew in 1936
http://www.k5054.com/
http://www.k5054.com/
It does matter, as it serves partly to demonstrate the point that at a time when Chamberlain was proclaiming "peace in our time" he was purchasing huge numbers of aircraft to rearm the R.A.F, he was purchasing huge amounts on anti-aircraft guns and deploying them and he was building public air raid shelters on a large scale.
You have to put this into the political perspective of the era also, in the last election before the war the Labour Party (and I'm a Labour man) said at congress "if elected we will disband the army, disband the navy and disband the R.A.F, and then will turn and say to the world , go ahead do your worst" you also have to remember the argument he had at the dispatch box when as Chancellor Of The Exchequer with the opposition (Labour) about his rearmament program as opposed to welfare (principally hospitals) in which he was told that he would rather bury the sons of this land than protect it's babies (from memory again I'm afraid) to which he replied "you wish for us to offer defiance without defence, I say you cannot offer defiance unless you have a good defence" (again from memory), it's a simple and salient fact that under Chamberlain's premiership the country was actively engaged in rearmament, when his stated foreign policy was one of peace which furthermore went against his own wishes domestically as the economy was on the mend "it's so annoying as we should be going along so swimmingly now" he remarked privately.
Chamberlain was a peacetime politician (that was his failing once war broke out), Churchill (for all his rhetoric) was deeply unpopular before the war, and was equally unpopular after the war, that's why we got Atlee in 1945.
You have to put this into the political perspective of the era also, in the last election before the war the Labour Party (and I'm a Labour man) said at congress "if elected we will disband the army, disband the navy and disband the R.A.F, and then will turn and say to the world , go ahead do your worst" you also have to remember the argument he had at the dispatch box when as Chancellor Of The Exchequer with the opposition (Labour) about his rearmament program as opposed to welfare (principally hospitals) in which he was told that he would rather bury the sons of this land than protect it's babies (from memory again I'm afraid) to which he replied "you wish for us to offer defiance without defence, I say you cannot offer defiance unless you have a good defence" (again from memory), it's a simple and salient fact that under Chamberlain's premiership the country was actively engaged in rearmament, when his stated foreign policy was one of peace which furthermore went against his own wishes domestically as the economy was on the mend "it's so annoying as we should be going along so swimmingly now" he remarked privately.
Chamberlain was a peacetime politician (that was his failing once war broke out), Churchill (for all his rhetoric) was deeply unpopular before the war, and was equally unpopular after the war, that's why we got Atlee in 1945.
I think that the specification for the 8 gun fighter which spawned both the Hurricane and the Spitfire was issued before either Chamberlain or Churchill were involved. In the case of the Spitfire planning had begun in 1931, with numerous modifications up until the final Air Ministry spec in April 1935. I don't think Chamberlain was in power for another couple of years. He did recognise the need for both planes, however, and did fund the general rearmament which was essential if Britain was to be prepared for war. Churchill, in turn, benefitted from this inheritance.
I don't think there's much doubt that Chamberlain was required to play the part of the duped pacifist after his meetings with Hitler. He was in no doubt that his "bit of paper" was worthless other than to delay any German attack. He also had to fend off the views of people like Halifax who would have been perfectly happy to see Germany as an ally- up to and after the invasion of Poland.
I don't think there's much doubt that Chamberlain was required to play the part of the duped pacifist after his meetings with Hitler. He was in no doubt that his "bit of paper" was worthless other than to delay any German attack. He also had to fend off the views of people like Halifax who would have been perfectly happy to see Germany as an ally- up to and after the invasion of Poland.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.