I have spent the last 65 or so years firmly believing that Chamberlain was essentially a weasel. Thanks for showing the opposite was true and we British owe him a huge debt.
Once again you have shown that there are two sides to every story.
Enlightening as usual across the Atlantic. Chamberlain is often reduced to a paragraph or two in stories relating to the beginning of the war here, obviously not flattering. DIsmissed as a footnote and then on to the triumphs of Churchill, who now also seems to be susceptible to unflattering revisions. Knocked down a few notches.
Yea that would have been great if Britain had been surrounded on all sides by entrenched Nazi military occupied nations. I do not believe that Hitler would have been satisfied to then leave the neutral nations in peace. Thinking of Switzerland and their vast wealth, the rest of Scandinavia, and why overlook Britain? He seemed to be leaning towards one half of the world for Germany and the far off Asia for Japan to own. Maybe let Italy have Africa for a while. And then there is widespread slaughter and oppression of countries that did no particularly want to live under a hobnail boot on the neck.........
With the advantage of hindsight we know the war was coming. I was a history major (among others) but never considered the agreement with Hitler was a stalling action. We might not be writing about this had Britain not built up forces in the late 1930s. And had Supermarine not won several Schneider Cup races the Battle of Britain could have been much different, too. The Spitfire bought the world time to build industries and militaries.
I'll have to ponder this for awhile and do some reading before I do a major change in my view of Chamberlain as PM. But I give him credit for putting the Empire in a better position, but he wasn't alone.
Churchill is the PM I and most Americans admire. He had a tough job and a lot to worry about. And in Parliament, a driving force in recognizing the Nazi threat and need for rearmament.
He was right about India, too. The first rule of an empire is maintain the empire. The British Empire inadvertently shielded America from many of the world's problems while we grew and developed. I'm sorry I missed it.
I'll disagree overall. The Luftwaffe had just as much time to improve between the Sudeten and Danzig Crises as the RAF did. Germany was outproducing the UK in military aircraft up until the outbreak of war, so the sooner the war the smaller the gap. The collapse of Czechoslovakia gave a substantial addition to German industrial capacity (more planes). Not only that but Germany got access to a large number of 38T tanks which saw action in France and Poland in 39-40. It is not easy to lose a battle of Britain with France in the way; and less so in a few weeks. Germany's initial plan for Fall Gelb was exactly as the Anglo-French alliance had prepared for and only because the Germans accidentally leaked it (via plane crash) did they move to the Manstein plan. Re-roll the dice, that element of serendipity may well disappear and France stays in the fight for years longer.
First a perhaps obligatory note: Britain was not the only country developing radar technology -Germany for one had also.
Len Deighton in Blood Tears and Folly sets it all out in Part One.
Reading his treatment on Chamberlain also, there seems to be little reason to abondon much of the 'traditional' view - August-September 1938 up to the Munich Conference was not a smart move to gain time, Chamberlaim and much of the 'Establishment' really wanted to come to a workable arrangement of sorts with Germany/Hitler. Only the liquadation of what remained of Czecoslovakia in March 1939 finally put at least some illussions to rest. (Peacetime consscription came at the pressing request of the army Chief of Staff. Chamberlain only went along when even Halifax agreed, then made the idea his one according to Deighton.)
David Reynolds in Summits in very summarized form: 'Chamberlain hoped and worked for a real change in Anglo-German relations. But gaining time WAS a subordinate goal in a worst-case scenario because hè was sure the country was not ready for war in 1938. (There is more to this by Reynolds, but it has to be brief here.)
Whatever Churchill may have stated in his big WW II history, in his comments in the House of Commons on the Munich Agreement.on October 5 1938 hè was devastating:
'A total and unmitigating defeat'...£1 was demand at pistol' point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol' point. Finally the Dictator consented to take £1 17s 6d and the
I can not help (like others, I am sure) but relate this english history to the current, where the english is literally/as a matter of fact invaded again:
2025-Jun-09, Simon Webb (History Debunked video): " 'Security staff' - how those invading Britain now control various aspects of life in this country".
·
WHY then, are not the english (and the non-english, but they have lesser responsibility) doing something to save their country... this time?
Because their zeitgeist is that of complete defeat, becasue of "hopeless"ness?:
2025-May-28, Simon Webb (History Debunked): "The England we have lost…"
(01:33) –"To me, this is a personal tragedy. Like the loss of a parent."
–"My Country is no more."
–"It is Dead, despite the frantic attempt by some patriotic elements to revive the corpse."
–"It is a hopeless endeavor."
–"That country we called England is gone for good."
–"There is no more to this video than that, which is that I mourn the loss of my Mother-Country."
·
OR this time, the english do not know what to do, how to defend themselves?
Who is the 'enemy'? — Like Mr Webb, many think the 'Establishment'-people (politicians, Media-people, institutions, etc.) are, which is true (Ref. 14 (?) years of wanting less immigration, but the 'Establishment'-people did not listen).
·
BUT, what about the individual invader?, whose collective/nubmers is what is making England end/disappear.
That is not wanted and ought to be an impossibility, according to one of our times' most valued persons and renowned spiritual inspirers: The 14th Dalai Lama:
2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview):
–"They [refugees] themselves, I think [are] better in their own land. Better [to] keep Europe for Europeans."
–"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
·
I THINK (and hope) Mr Webb is wrong. It is not about the english feeling hopeless, but method-less — if they knew how, then they would act (I am sure):
–Doing the (currently) unthinkable, according to their english culture-characteristic of being polite/nice:
–Not puting on a military uniform and grab a rifle, but use one's Word and Voice (the non-violent democratic way), and approach immigrants/non-english on the street, in the shop, on the bus and anywhere else, and say in a polite manner precisely what one feels:
–'Please leave my country. I do not want me and my children and grandchildren to become a minority, becasue I would not feel at home with too many of you.'
·
Mr Webb (or anyone else) could find out if this 'method' makes him a criminal, or investigated for a 'non-crime hate incident' or a "Racially Aggrevated Public Order Act" [1986] offence.
Like this woman did and was, who told immigrants to Go Home to their living-quarters, which was not an accepted/believable reason according to the police, and she was therefore punished (not wounded or killed):
2024-Nov-14, TalkTV video: "EXCLUSIVE: Leeds Woman's 13 Hours In Custody Accused Of 'Disrupting Romanian Vigil' During Riots":
She was arrested (03:35) "on suspicion of a Racially Aggrevated Public Order Act [1986] offence", because she had said (03:54) "GO HOME, you're devaluing property" to the Romanian crowd, which "caused them distress".
To avoid the above, Mr Webb could use a clever tactic: –'hire' a non-english person to do it for him, if for no other reason than to test/challenge the ('two-tier'?) judicial system.
·
OR, if the non-english person gets angry and claim equal right to live in England, then it is informed of how its (former?) country-men (eg. arabs, africans) relate to immigrants and ethnic and cultural diversity, and told (in a not polite manner): 'I do not like hypocrites! Go home!'.
(2022-Aug-22, Nigerian Federal Ministry of Information and Culture, Twitter [status/1561686986410397696]: –"Ban on the use of Foreign Models and Voice-Over Artists on the Nigerian Advertising Medium/Media".)
Doubtless you have read Churchills six volume account of WWII. In this Churchill is fairly positive about N. Chamberlain and notes that he was earnestly devoted to the idea of peace but became entirely resolute in the face of Germany being unreasonable (essentially if there is a chance for peace we should aim for that, but if war is inevitable we'd do well to be on the winning side).
Notably however, the allies had been in fact happily disarming, despite clear evidence that Germany was not abiding by its treaty negotiations... all the way up until 1936-37. This fever for weakening ourselves was the dominant view in the HoC not at all the view of N. Chamberlain alone. The government was tying itself in knots over the importance of respecting the sovereignty of Belgium and the Netherlands (and Norway and Sweden) and could not stomach the idea of riding forward to meet the enemy if it involved trampling on Neutral soil uninvited.
Any view contrary to this dominant sense of pacifism was seen as "ah that just Winston banging on his war drum again"... must have been embarrassing for some a few years later.
N. Chamberlain seems to have been a serious conscientious fellow with only a desire to do the best for Britain at heart. It may be interesting to see how he measures up against any of our recent crop of politicians.
"N. Chamberlain seems to have been a serious conscientious fellow with only a desire to do the best for Britain at heart. It may be interesting to see how he measures up against any of our recent crop of politicians."
Now that statement is an insult to Chamberlain. I've never known a more inept and unintelligent crop of politicians we have now. Without exaggeration it is frightening.
You speak truly! Comparing our current rulers to any British politician from the 1930s is bound to show the present bunch to disadvantage. I don't believe that we have ever seen such a pitiful crew running the country!
I have long known this. Thanks for setting the record straight. It's so annoying that most people believe the story Chamberlain set up rather than the truth.
"So firmly embedded in public consciousness is this erroneous and misleading version of history, that it is perhaps hopeless to set the record straight at this late date, but I shall give it a try anyway."
Why would this be the case? — Why did not politicians (who instruct departments, eg. education) or civil-servants include this bit of history into the school curriculum?
Poor knowledge / understanding? Negligence, lack of interest / curiosity? Spirit of the age/zeitgeist?
PS — Misspelling: "Had the steps which I have OUTLINES above not been taken,".
I think it is because with history we like to have a simple and easily understood narrative to which we can all agree and preferably one in which there are heroes and villains, wise men and fools. In this case, Churchill is the cats as the resolute man of action, the saviour of the nation, while Chamberlain is a doddering old weakling. History is usually far more complex than the commonly accepted and agreed story.
To Mr Webb: Thank you for your answer/explaination.
I wonder what History will tell about You and your kind (eg. the Lotus Eaters, New Culture Forum):
–A brave hero or an abominable villain (ie. a 'racist', a.k.a. 'far-right' and 'extreme right-wing')?
–A wise man that observed and reported (hoping to awaken/inspire others), or a fool that dared?
Ref. your videos/historical record, for example:
2025-Jun-07: "The British government defines patriotism as an ‘extreme, right-wing, terrorist ideology’… "
2025-Jun-10: "Mass immigration may destroy the British nation, but it certainly gets the government out of a hole!";
2025-Jun-09:" 'Security staff' - how those invading Britain now control various aspects of life in this country"
·
As always, those who live will know.
·
PS —I think you are wise, but (like most, ie. the 'Silent Majority') too polite and/or not brave enough.
Understandably so: 2024-Apr-19, History Debunked video: "The central lie of anti-racism has enjoyed unrivalled success among the credulous and dull-witted":
01:58 –"in this modern world of ours, the very accusation of racism alone can be enough to destroy somebody's career and cause irreparable harm to their reputation and social life into the bargain."
(Why did nobody think of using the Defamation Law, if this moral accusation causes so much distress?, it was written for that purpose. —And nobody thought about the children? –'Mom, are you a racist?!'.)
·
That (being too polite and/or cowardice/fearful) will probably be your down-fall at A.D. 2050, according to (Wikipedia) "right-wing political commentator" Mattew Goodwin.
It is a tragedy beyond belief/sanity: –the World is losing one of its most important/famous contributors to its Diversity: the english.
Why? What was the point/reason?, when eg. the nigerians are morally allowed to preserve their nation's characteristics:
2025-Jun-08, History Debunked video: "African countries don’t want white people in their advertisements!"
There was no reason?, only a reaction of History's past racism —ie. nazism (DE), apartheid (SA), 'Jim Crow' (US)— bleeding in into the current.
Simon - yes unless Chamberlain was an upper class twit - then I suspect that you may be right - I have been reconsidering my view for this period of history for the past couple of years. Though I still feel the UK should not have got involved in either of the two world wars - I realize that if we had not got involved in the first war then the second - at least in the form it took - would not have happened along with the Russian revolution. Anyway. my father was one of those called up for conscription just before the war - July 1939 - I sometimes wonder, given the state of things in this country and indeed continental Europe - that 1, we should certainly have stayed neutral and 2, perhaps joined as allies with the Axis powers,
My father too was called up months before war was declared, but then he had been foolish enough to join the territorial army in 1938, as his friend said that it was good fun.
I imagine the only thing that might have worked was something along the lines of the Entent Cordiale (recognising the British and French spheres of influence and not unreasonably treading on each others toes). If this could have been extended to Germany then perhaps the disaster could have been averted.
But... Germany was too big. 50% more populous than France before WWI and growing. If they had spanked the French in the Franco-Prussian war 40 or so years earlier with an equal population they were clearly too powerful already. Any idea of a German sphere of influence expanding within Europe (filling the void created by the Ottomans) was therefore undesirable. As for the alternative, there was not much of the world left to create further flung colonies either.
Maybe the Franco Prussian war was the last time to stop what would go on to fatally cripple Europe. But Britain seemed underestimate the strength of a potentially united Germany and to overestimate the strength of France and Russia.
I have spent the last 65 or so years firmly believing that Chamberlain was essentially a weasel. Thanks for showing the opposite was true and we British owe him a huge debt.
Once again you have shown that there are two sides to every story.
Stephen Smith
Enlightening as usual across the Atlantic. Chamberlain is often reduced to a paragraph or two in stories relating to the beginning of the war here, obviously not flattering. DIsmissed as a footnote and then on to the triumphs of Churchill, who now also seems to be susceptible to unflattering revisions. Knocked down a few notches.
I'm glad that you found it interesting.
If we hadn't declared war on Germanyin 39 - the result of an absurd commitment to Poland - Germany would have been no threat to us.
Also: unlike all post-WW2 UK governments, and especially those in power since 97, the Nazis didn't actually hate the Britishpeople
Yea that would have been great if Britain had been surrounded on all sides by entrenched Nazi military occupied nations. I do not believe that Hitler would have been satisfied to then leave the neutral nations in peace. Thinking of Switzerland and their vast wealth, the rest of Scandinavia, and why overlook Britain? He seemed to be leaning towards one half of the world for Germany and the far off Asia for Japan to own. Maybe let Italy have Africa for a while. And then there is widespread slaughter and oppression of countries that did no particularly want to live under a hobnail boot on the neck.........
But we lost.
Good book is Churchill, H1tler and the Unnecessary War by Patrick Buchanan.
With the advantage of hindsight we know the war was coming. I was a history major (among others) but never considered the agreement with Hitler was a stalling action. We might not be writing about this had Britain not built up forces in the late 1930s. And had Supermarine not won several Schneider Cup races the Battle of Britain could have been much different, too. The Spitfire bought the world time to build industries and militaries.
I'll have to ponder this for awhile and do some reading before I do a major change in my view of Chamberlain as PM. But I give him credit for putting the Empire in a better position, but he wasn't alone.
Churchill is the PM I and most Americans admire. He had a tough job and a lot to worry about. And in Parliament, a driving force in recognizing the Nazi threat and need for rearmament.
He was right about India, too. The first rule of an empire is maintain the empire. The British Empire inadvertently shielded America from many of the world's problems while we grew and developed. I'm sorry I missed it.
Debunked indeed! Another excellent piece, Simon. Thank you.
I'll disagree overall. The Luftwaffe had just as much time to improve between the Sudeten and Danzig Crises as the RAF did. Germany was outproducing the UK in military aircraft up until the outbreak of war, so the sooner the war the smaller the gap. The collapse of Czechoslovakia gave a substantial addition to German industrial capacity (more planes). Not only that but Germany got access to a large number of 38T tanks which saw action in France and Poland in 39-40. It is not easy to lose a battle of Britain with France in the way; and less so in a few weeks. Germany's initial plan for Fall Gelb was exactly as the Anglo-French alliance had prepared for and only because the Germans accidentally leaked it (via plane crash) did they move to the Manstein plan. Re-roll the dice, that element of serendipity may well disappear and France stays in the fight for years longer.
Simon, you should write a book about this!
First a perhaps obligatory note: Britain was not the only country developing radar technology -Germany for one had also.
Len Deighton in Blood Tears and Folly sets it all out in Part One.
Reading his treatment on Chamberlain also, there seems to be little reason to abondon much of the 'traditional' view - August-September 1938 up to the Munich Conference was not a smart move to gain time, Chamberlaim and much of the 'Establishment' really wanted to come to a workable arrangement of sorts with Germany/Hitler. Only the liquadation of what remained of Czecoslovakia in March 1939 finally put at least some illussions to rest. (Peacetime consscription came at the pressing request of the army Chief of Staff. Chamberlain only went along when even Halifax agreed, then made the idea his one according to Deighton.)
David Reynolds in Summits in very summarized form: 'Chamberlain hoped and worked for a real change in Anglo-German relations. But gaining time WAS a subordinate goal in a worst-case scenario because hè was sure the country was not ready for war in 1938. (There is more to this by Reynolds, but it has to be brief here.)
Whatever Churchill may have stated in his big WW II history, in his comments in the House of Commons on the Munich Agreement.on October 5 1938 hè was devastating:
'A total and unmitigating defeat'...£1 was demand at pistol' point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol' point. Finally the Dictator consented to take £1 17s 6d and the
rest in promises of goodwill for the future.'
I can not help (like others, I am sure) but relate this english history to the current, where the english is literally/as a matter of fact invaded again:
2025-Jun-09, Simon Webb (History Debunked video): " 'Security staff' - how those invading Britain now control various aspects of life in this country".
·
WHY then, are not the english (and the non-english, but they have lesser responsibility) doing something to save their country... this time?
Because their zeitgeist is that of complete defeat, becasue of "hopeless"ness?:
2025-May-28, Simon Webb (History Debunked): "The England we have lost…"
(01:33) –"To me, this is a personal tragedy. Like the loss of a parent."
–"My Country is no more."
–"It is Dead, despite the frantic attempt by some patriotic elements to revive the corpse."
–"It is a hopeless endeavor."
–"That country we called England is gone for good."
–"There is no more to this video than that, which is that I mourn the loss of my Mother-Country."
·
OR this time, the english do not know what to do, how to defend themselves?
Who is the 'enemy'? — Like Mr Webb, many think the 'Establishment'-people (politicians, Media-people, institutions, etc.) are, which is true (Ref. 14 (?) years of wanting less immigration, but the 'Establishment'-people did not listen).
·
BUT, what about the individual invader?, whose collective/nubmers is what is making England end/disappear.
That is not wanted and ought to be an impossibility, according to one of our times' most valued persons and renowned spiritual inspirers: The 14th Dalai Lama:
2019-Jun-27 Daily Mail (BBC interview):
–"They [refugees] themselves, I think [are] better in their own land. Better [to] keep Europe for Europeans."
–"A limited number is OK, but whole Europe eventually become MUSLIM country? Impossible. Or AFRICAN country? Also impossible."
·
I THINK (and hope) Mr Webb is wrong. It is not about the english feeling hopeless, but method-less — if they knew how, then they would act (I am sure):
–Doing the (currently) unthinkable, according to their english culture-characteristic of being polite/nice:
–Not puting on a military uniform and grab a rifle, but use one's Word and Voice (the non-violent democratic way), and approach immigrants/non-english on the street, in the shop, on the bus and anywhere else, and say in a polite manner precisely what one feels:
–'Please leave my country. I do not want me and my children and grandchildren to become a minority, becasue I would not feel at home with too many of you.'
·
Mr Webb (or anyone else) could find out if this 'method' makes him a criminal, or investigated for a 'non-crime hate incident' or a "Racially Aggrevated Public Order Act" [1986] offence.
Like this woman did and was, who told immigrants to Go Home to their living-quarters, which was not an accepted/believable reason according to the police, and she was therefore punished (not wounded or killed):
2024-Nov-14, TalkTV video: "EXCLUSIVE: Leeds Woman's 13 Hours In Custody Accused Of 'Disrupting Romanian Vigil' During Riots":
She was arrested (03:35) "on suspicion of a Racially Aggrevated Public Order Act [1986] offence", because she had said (03:54) "GO HOME, you're devaluing property" to the Romanian crowd, which "caused them distress".
To avoid the above, Mr Webb could use a clever tactic: –'hire' a non-english person to do it for him, if for no other reason than to test/challenge the ('two-tier'?) judicial system.
·
OR, if the non-english person gets angry and claim equal right to live in England, then it is informed of how its (former?) country-men (eg. arabs, africans) relate to immigrants and ethnic and cultural diversity, and told (in a not polite manner): 'I do not like hypocrites! Go home!'.
(2022-Aug-22, Nigerian Federal Ministry of Information and Culture, Twitter [status/1561686986410397696]: –"Ban on the use of Foreign Models and Voice-Over Artists on the Nigerian Advertising Medium/Media".)
Doubtless you have read Churchills six volume account of WWII. In this Churchill is fairly positive about N. Chamberlain and notes that he was earnestly devoted to the idea of peace but became entirely resolute in the face of Germany being unreasonable (essentially if there is a chance for peace we should aim for that, but if war is inevitable we'd do well to be on the winning side).
Notably however, the allies had been in fact happily disarming, despite clear evidence that Germany was not abiding by its treaty negotiations... all the way up until 1936-37. This fever for weakening ourselves was the dominant view in the HoC not at all the view of N. Chamberlain alone. The government was tying itself in knots over the importance of respecting the sovereignty of Belgium and the Netherlands (and Norway and Sweden) and could not stomach the idea of riding forward to meet the enemy if it involved trampling on Neutral soil uninvited.
Any view contrary to this dominant sense of pacifism was seen as "ah that just Winston banging on his war drum again"... must have been embarrassing for some a few years later.
N. Chamberlain seems to have been a serious conscientious fellow with only a desire to do the best for Britain at heart. It may be interesting to see how he measures up against any of our recent crop of politicians.
"N. Chamberlain seems to have been a serious conscientious fellow with only a desire to do the best for Britain at heart. It may be interesting to see how he measures up against any of our recent crop of politicians."
Now that statement is an insult to Chamberlain. I've never known a more inept and unintelligent crop of politicians we have now. Without exaggeration it is frightening.
You speak truly! Comparing our current rulers to any British politician from the 1930s is bound to show the present bunch to disadvantage. I don't believe that we have ever seen such a pitiful crew running the country!
Informative, enlightening and very interesting Simon, thank you.
I'm glad that you liked it!
I have long known this. Thanks for setting the record straight. It's so annoying that most people believe the story Chamberlain set up rather than the truth.
Yes, I too find it surprising how few people know what really happened in the run-up to the war!
your words are always eye opening
I'm flattered that you should thinks so! Thank you.
Mr Webb writes:
"So firmly embedded in public consciousness is this erroneous and misleading version of history, that it is perhaps hopeless to set the record straight at this late date, but I shall give it a try anyway."
Why would this be the case? — Why did not politicians (who instruct departments, eg. education) or civil-servants include this bit of history into the school curriculum?
Poor knowledge / understanding? Negligence, lack of interest / curiosity? Spirit of the age/zeitgeist?
PS — Misspelling: "Had the steps which I have OUTLINES above not been taken,".
I think it is because with history we like to have a simple and easily understood narrative to which we can all agree and preferably one in which there are heroes and villains, wise men and fools. In this case, Churchill is the cats as the resolute man of action, the saviour of the nation, while Chamberlain is a doddering old weakling. History is usually far more complex than the commonly accepted and agreed story.
To Mr Webb: Thank you for your answer/explaination.
I wonder what History will tell about You and your kind (eg. the Lotus Eaters, New Culture Forum):
–A brave hero or an abominable villain (ie. a 'racist', a.k.a. 'far-right' and 'extreme right-wing')?
–A wise man that observed and reported (hoping to awaken/inspire others), or a fool that dared?
Ref. your videos/historical record, for example:
2025-Jun-07: "The British government defines patriotism as an ‘extreme, right-wing, terrorist ideology’… "
2025-Jun-10: "Mass immigration may destroy the British nation, but it certainly gets the government out of a hole!";
2025-Jun-09:" 'Security staff' - how those invading Britain now control various aspects of life in this country"
·
As always, those who live will know.
·
PS —I think you are wise, but (like most, ie. the 'Silent Majority') too polite and/or not brave enough.
Understandably so: 2024-Apr-19, History Debunked video: "The central lie of anti-racism has enjoyed unrivalled success among the credulous and dull-witted":
01:58 –"in this modern world of ours, the very accusation of racism alone can be enough to destroy somebody's career and cause irreparable harm to their reputation and social life into the bargain."
(Why did nobody think of using the Defamation Law, if this moral accusation causes so much distress?, it was written for that purpose. —And nobody thought about the children? –'Mom, are you a racist?!'.)
·
That (being too polite and/or cowardice/fearful) will probably be your down-fall at A.D. 2050, according to (Wikipedia) "right-wing political commentator" Mattew Goodwin.
It is a tragedy beyond belief/sanity: –the World is losing one of its most important/famous contributors to its Diversity: the english.
Why? What was the point/reason?, when eg. the nigerians are morally allowed to preserve their nation's characteristics:
2025-Jun-08, History Debunked video: "African countries don’t want white people in their advertisements!"
There was no reason?, only a reaction of History's past racism —ie. nazism (DE), apartheid (SA), 'Jim Crow' (US)— bleeding in into the current.
Simon - yes unless Chamberlain was an upper class twit - then I suspect that you may be right - I have been reconsidering my view for this period of history for the past couple of years. Though I still feel the UK should not have got involved in either of the two world wars - I realize that if we had not got involved in the first war then the second - at least in the form it took - would not have happened along with the Russian revolution. Anyway. my father was one of those called up for conscription just before the war - July 1939 - I sometimes wonder, given the state of things in this country and indeed continental Europe - that 1, we should certainly have stayed neutral and 2, perhaps joined as allies with the Axis powers,
My father too was called up months before war was declared, but then he had been foolish enough to join the territorial army in 1938, as his friend said that it was good fun.
I imagine the only thing that might have worked was something along the lines of the Entent Cordiale (recognising the British and French spheres of influence and not unreasonably treading on each others toes). If this could have been extended to Germany then perhaps the disaster could have been averted.
But... Germany was too big. 50% more populous than France before WWI and growing. If they had spanked the French in the Franco-Prussian war 40 or so years earlier with an equal population they were clearly too powerful already. Any idea of a German sphere of influence expanding within Europe (filling the void created by the Ottomans) was therefore undesirable. As for the alternative, there was not much of the world left to create further flung colonies either.
Maybe the Franco Prussian war was the last time to stop what would go on to fatally cripple Europe. But Britain seemed underestimate the strength of a potentially united Germany and to overestimate the strength of France and Russia.