When I think of the legitimate hopes for a long peace that awaited Europe in early 1933, when Mr. Hitler first came to power, and all the possibilities of stopping the growth of Nazi power that were thrown away, when I think of the immense combinations and resources that were neglected or wasted, I can`t believe, that there is a parallel throughout history. Again, what happened in Warsaw? The British and French ambassadors visited or attempted to visit the Foreign Secretary, Colonel Beck, to demand some mitigation of the harsh measures against Czechoslovakia against Teschen. The door was slammed in front of their noses, the French ambassador was not even given an audience and the British ambassador received an extremely brief reply from a political director. This whole affair is described in the Polish press as a political indiscretion committed by these two powers, and today we read the success of Colonel Beck`s strike. I must not forget, I must say, that it has been less than twenty years since British and French bayonets saved Poland from slavery for a century and a half. I think that this is indeed a sad episode in the history of this country, for the freedom and rights of which many of us have had a warm and long sympathy. Whatever we think, we must consider these steps as belonging to the category of issues that are regulated beyond memory. The past is no more, and you can only be comforted when you feel that you have done your best to advise correctly, wisely and in a timely manner. So I look to the future and our situation as it is today.
Again, I will certainly have to say something that will not be welcome at all. Nevelle Chamberlain returns from MunichIf I do not begin this afternoon by expressing to the Prime Minister the usual and even almost immutable gratitude for his management of this crisis, it is certainly not out of a lack of personal respect. We have always had very pleasant relationships for many years, and I have deeply understood, from my personal experiences in a similar crisis, the stress and tension he had to endure; but I`m sure it`s much better to say exactly what we think about public affairs, and this is certainly not the time to solicit political popularity. These are the characteristics that I want to discover here, which have marked a careless administration for which Britain and France have to pay dearly. In those five years, we have been reduced from such an overwhelming and unassailable position of security that we have never bothered to think about it. We were reduced from a position where the word “war” was seen as a word that could only be used by people qualified for insane asylum. We have been removed from a position of security and power – the power to do good, the power to be generous to a defeated enemy, the power to get along with Germany, the power to give it adequate reparation for its grievances, the power to stop arming it if we wanted to take power to take all the steps in force, in mercy or justice that we thought was just – reduced in five years from a safe and undisputed position at our stand. Right now. Churchill`s greatest disagreement with John Simon and Chamberlain concerned the value of a war with Germany to defend Czechoslovakia. Churchill believed that Czechoslovakia had been sacrificed to preserve peace with Germany, and that “they were left to fend for themselves and told that they would not get help from the Western powers, [the Czechs] could have created better conditions than they had.” Churchill also used his speech to highlight the hypocrisy of forcing Czechoslovakia to give up part of its sovereign territory without a referendum. He said, “No matter how you say it, this particular block of land, this mass of people to be delivered, never expressed a desire to enter the Nazi regime.” This violated the principle of self-determination, which stated that “liberal and democratic” nations should be protected from takeover by totalitarian governments, an idea Churchill strongly supported.
There can never be absolute certainty that there will be a fight when a party is determined to give in completely. If you read the Munich terms, if you see what is happening in Czechoslovakia from hour to hour, if you are sure, then I am not talking about parliamentary approval, but parliamentary acquiescence, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives a speech that, in any case, tries to express the fact in a very powerful and convincing way, after all, it was inevitable and even fair: when we say all this and everyone on this side of the House, including many members of the Conservative Party who keep the national interest vigilant and careful, it is quite clear that nothing was at stake that affected us in a vital way, it seems to me that one must ask oneself: What made anger and excitement? That week in 1938, Winston Churchill delivered one of the most remarkable speeches of the twentieth century, his condemnation of the Munich Accords. In that agreement, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to allow Adolf Hitler`s Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a german-dominated province of Czechoslovakia. Hitler had already revealed his hatred of Jews and his imperial ambitions in Europe. But Chamberlain believed that concession to Hitler`s demands could help avert another catastrophic European war like the one that had devastated the continent two decades earlier. (FDR privately condemned Chamberlain`s weakness, but publicly assured Hitler that the United States had no intention of intervening.) I cannot believe that the Prime Minister or a Prime Minister who has a large working majority would be capable of such an act of historical and constitutional indecency. I think too much of him. Of course, if I judged it wrong on the right and there was a dissolution of the Munich Accords, anglo-Nazi friendship, the state of our defense and so on, everyone will have to fight according to their convictions, and only a prophet could predict the final outcome; But whatever the outcome, few could be more fatal to our chances of survival as a great power than this country torn in two on this deadly foreign policy issue, at a time when, regardless of the ministers, combined efforts alone can make us safe. Here is a country that, three months ago, would have aligned itself with other countries to stop what happened.
In a BBC speech on the 29th. May Churchill said: “After receiving Her Majesty`s commission, I formed an administration of men and women from all parties and from almost all points of view. We have quarrelled and quarrelled in the past; But now we are united by a bond – to wage war until victory is won, and never give in to servitude and shame, no matter the cost and torment. This is one of the most impressive periods in the long history of France and the United Kingdom. [20] We are being asked to vote in favour of this motion for a resolution, which was tabled on paper, and it is certainly a motion that is formulated in a very uncontroversial way, since the amendment was tabled by the opposition. Personally, I cannot agree with the measures taken, and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out his version of the case so richly, I will try, if I may, to look at the case from a different angle. I have always been of the view that peacekeeping depends on the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, combined with a sincere effort to remedy grievances. Mr. Hitler`s victory, like so many famous battles that determined the fate of the world, was won by the narrowest margin. Churchill used this speech to expose Hitler`s expansionist tendencies immediately after Germany`s annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. He sharply criticized Neville Chamberlain and his government for accepting Hitler`s annexation of the Sudetenland, saying, “Instead of snatching his food from the table, [Hitler] simply served them to him class by course.” Churchill saw the Munich Accords as a show of weakness that disrupted the continental balance of power, and he argued that the agreement would not prevent the outbreak of war or guarantee that Hitler would change his behavior.
After lengthy discussions about a post for Chamberlain, he was appointed Lord President, a post with no specific responsibilities but requiring the overall coordination of home affairs. Unusually, Chamberlain also remained leader of the Conservative Party – a position usually reserved for the prime minister or the leader of the opposition. On the 17th. Mai wrote chamberlain in his diary: “My whole world fell apart in an instant. The national danger has flooded all personal feelings to such an extent that there is no more bitterness. In fact, I used to tell Annie before the war that if something like this happened, I thought I had to pass the baton to someone else, because I knew what anguish it would mean for me to give instructions that would bring death, mutilation and misery to so many people. “[21] They didn`t stop there. . .
