Originally Posted by MontyB

Yes but with the failures of the war in the early days the role of Minister of Defence may well have been a poisoned chalice.

I would also argue that Halifax was an "appeaser" only when he believed that appeasement would work, he was for appeasement in both the Rhineland which was German territory anyway and Austria as long as it was peaceful but he was far from an appeaser over Czechoslovakia and pushed for military support for the Czechs and more or less told Germany they would go to war over Poland.

Hitler knew Chamberlain was an appeaser and used that to his advantage during the Munich crisis, more or less forcing and brow beating Chamberlain into accepting the the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. I in all honesty believe, rightly or wrongly, that had Halifax been PM during the Munich crisis the end result would be the same at the end of the day. Hitler without a doubt knew Halifax's weaknesses including his appeasement attitude, Hitler admitted that the only man in Britain that worried him was Churchill.

My own experiences in life have proven to me that appeasement never works with bullies, they do not like a "Stuff you, get in your face attitude," which Churchill had.

If I remember correctly Churchill once said, "Jaw Jaw Jaw is better then War, War, War...................so say the appeasers."

Britin, I totally agree with you.

The appeasers, led by Chamberlain, seemed totally unaware that Hitler's plans, blueprinted in Mien Kampf, were now emerging in frightening reality. The appeasers sat idle in their ignorant hope that Hitler would eventually stop. What they did not understand was Hitler's aim and that standing idle and watching would not help stop him. Churchill was basically alone in his stand against appeasement.

"One pound was demanded at the pistol's point. When it was given, two pounds were demanded at the pistol's point. Finally, the dictator consented to take one pound, 17 shillings and sixpence, and the rest in promises of good will for the future."

Churchill made this remark while speaking to the House after the Munich Agreement had been signed and Germany was allowed to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. For Churchill, this was the last straw. He understood that Hitler pushed Chamberlain.

Hitler's aggressive and unchecked actions led Churchill to say, "There can never be absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely. I always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor"

Instead of creating peace, appeasement encouraged war: if Hitler was never challenged in his aggression, why would he stop aggressing?

The leadership and determination seen in Churchill well before the war started gave strength to the British people and without this courage the war would have been over at the Battle of Britain. Churchill's leadership in creating the Grand Alliance and determination the entire war secured the British and all free people a victory over the Nazi empire.

He was the lion who roared when the British Empire needed him most.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Hitler knew Chamberlain was an appeaser and used that to his advantage during the Munich crisis, more or less forcing and brow beating Chamberlain into accepting the the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. I in all honesty believe, rightly or wrongly, that had Halifax been PM during the Munich crisis the end result would be the same at the end of the day. Hitler without a doubt knew Halifax's weaknesses including his appeasement attitude, Hitler admitted that the only man in Britain that worried him was Churchill.

My own experiences in life have proven to me that appeasement never works with bullies, they do not like a "Stuff you, get in your face attitude," which Churchill had.

If I remember correctly Churchill once said, "Jaw Jaw Jaw is better then War, War, War...................so say the appeasers."

I think Hitler's view of Halifax was misguided then, Halifax while not enthusiastic about rearmament firmly supported it, he did not support the Munich agreement and on march 31st 1939 gave Poland its guarantee with the statement "There will be no more Munich's" and to back this up he was behind the rejection of German peace offers through the Papacy, Portugal and Finland in mid 1940.

There is no doubt that he was tainted with Chamberlains appeasement policies but I would suggest his actions were hardly the actions of an appeaser but rather a pragmatic politician.

Originally Posted by Seehund

Britin, I totally agree with you.

The appeasers, led by Chamberlain, seemed totally unaware that Hitler's plans, blueprinted in Mien Kampf, were now emerging in frightening reality. The appeasers sat idle in their ignorant hope that Hitler would eventually stop. What they did not understand was Hitler's aim and that standing idle and watching would not help stop him. Churchill was basically alone in his stand against appeasement.

"One pound was demanded at the pistol's point. When it was given, two pounds were demanded at the pistol's point. Finally, the dictator consented to take one pound, 17 shillings and sixpence, and the rest in promises of good will for the future."

Churchill made this remark while speaking to the House after the Munich Agreement had been signed and Germany was allowed to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. For Churchill, this was the last straw. He understood that Hitler pushed Chamberlain.

Hitler's aggressive and unchecked actions led Churchill to say, "There can never be absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely. I always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor"

Instead of creating peace, appeasement encouraged war: if Hitler was never challenged in his aggression, why would he stop aggressing?

The leadership and determination seen in Churchill well before the war started gave strength to the British people and without this courage the war would have been over at the Battle of Britain. Churchill's leadership in creating the Grand Alliance and determination the entire war secured the British and all free people a victory over the Nazi empire.

He was the lion who roared when the British Empire needed him most.

Seehund:I totally disagree with you
You are ignoring the following
1)Peace or War in 1938 did not depend on Britain:Britain had no army,it was disarmed.
2)This was caused because all British governments since 1919 had decided that Britain would disarm and avoid any involvement with what happened on the continent (the 10 years rule)
3) Between 1924 and 1929,there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who wanted to keep the military budget as low as possible ;you know who ? Winston Churchill:he was co-responsible for the situation of the British forces in 1938
4)Any increase(between 1931-1938) of the offensive capabilities of the British forces would result in losing the elections .The taxpayer (=the voter) accepted to pay more taxes for the defense of Britain,NOT to send again a BEF to defend the Czechs .
5)In 1938,Churchill was detested by every one and considered by a lot of people as a war monger and a crypto fascist.
6)In the Sudeten crisis,Britain had no moral reason to intervene,unless its POV was that the Sudeten Germans had no right to secede from Czechoslowakia and that the selfdetermination of the peoples did not apply to the Sudeten Germans .
7)Britain also had NO obligation to help the Czechs
8)The result (Munchen) did not endanger Britain,nor France .One can argue that it was bad for the Czechs,but that was not the business of Britain .

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think Hitler's view of Halifax was misguided then, Halifax while not enthusiastic about rearmament firmly supported it, he did not support the Munich agreement and on march 31st 1939 gave Poland its guarantee with the statement "There will be no more Munich's" and to back this up he was behind the rejection of German peace offers through the Papacy, Portugal and Finland in mid 1940.

There is no doubt that he was tainted with Chamberlains appeasement policies but I would suggest his actions were hardly the actions of an appeaser but rather a pragmatic politician.

If Halifax had been PM and refused to support the Munich agreement, could war have been declared earlier then September or even delayed beyond September. To be honest, I have no idea.

In my opinion German offers of peace were no more then smoke and mirrors to avoid conflict with Britain, thereby giving Hitler a free hand in Europe. I believe Halifax was aware of this, and so was Chamberlain finally.

He was the model aristocratic conservative, concerned more with pragmatic solutions than theoretical concerns. His early views on Hitler and National Socialism were terrifyingly naïve and misguided, but by May 1940 Halifax could not ignore the dangers that Hitler presented. Still, he fought to the end for a diplomatic solution, which he thought could be achieved by appeal to Mussolini. In his retirement Lord Halifax wrote his memoirs, Fulness of Days (1957) where he attempted to defend the policy of appeasement.

Originally Posted by lljadw

Seehund:I totally disagree with you

LOL, Well IIjadw, I would be surprised if you had the same view as me.

IMHO He was one of the great statesmen of world history. Often satirized as a bulldog, Churchill’s far-sightedness, toughness, tenacity, courage and will to win despite the odds, enlisted support at home and abroad. The mere sight of him, with the characteristic Cuban cigar in his mouth and two fingers raised in the “V for victory” sign, encouraged the population. He was John Bull, a British mythical character and the symbol of the common people, come to life.

But we have different perceptions of world history - I can see

Well,you are avoiding the discussion by using a strawman(=Churchill as war leader),but,this is of topic :we are discussing the prewar period:during this period,the majority of the British people supported appeasement (as well as the majority of the politicians,as ..Eden),and refused to follow Churchill .One of the reasons was that Churchill had a bad image (rightfully or wrongfully).
For Labour,he was the man who used the army against the miners.
He also said several ...unwise things,as abolishing general suffrage,he was a well known admiror of Mussolini,there was his opposition to more autonomy for India, his disastrous attitude during the constitutional crisis,his attempts to unseat Baldwin as leader of the Tories,he had the image of a war lover...

Originally Posted by lljadw

Well,you are avoiding the discussion by using a strawman(=Churchill as war leader),but,this is of topic :we are discussing the prewar period:during this period,the majority of the British people supported appeasement (as well as the majority of the politicians,as ..Eden),and refused to follow Churchill .One of the reasons was that Churchill had a bad image (rightfully or wrongfully).
For Labour,he was the man who used the army against the miners.
He also said several ...unwise things,as abolishing general suffrage,he was a well known admiror of Mussolini,there was his opposition to more autonomy for India, his disastrous attitude during the constitutional crisis,his attempts to unseat Baldwin as leader of the Tories,he had the image of a war lover...

Churchill became Prime Minister during WWII, not before. I don't know much about Halifax so I can't answer the topic question but in my opinion Churchill was the right man at the right place at the right time. What Eisenhower did for the allies militarily, Churchill did politically.

History came close to being quite diffrent. While 1st Sea Lord he was onboard a Battleship that was hit by @ least 1 torpedo that failed to detonate. Considering the habit of British Battleships blowing up....