Posted on 07/31/2006 12:12:50 PM PDT by Clive
Peace For Our Time
As spoken at 10 Downing Street on September 30, 1938 and as reported in Hansard September on October 3, 1938
The following is the wording of the printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And from: Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938) (Hansard):
The Prime Minister:Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those terms are being considered.
The first is this: We did not go there to decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already. Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory.
The second point to remember is that time was one of the essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organised forces.
Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. . . .
. . . To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.
Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy.
[Hon. Members: Shame.]
I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss. Mr. Bellenger: It is an insult to say it.
The Prime Minister: I say in the name of this House and of the people of this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.
The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. . . .
I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement.
After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part.
With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.
In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted.
The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made.
I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.
Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.
The Munich appeasement handed over the Sudetenland to Germany in return for "peace for our time" and no further German territorial demands.
By March 15th, 1939, through manipulations of the weakened Czech government, Germany had occupied the remainder of the Czechoslovakia.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and on September 3, 1939 Britain declared war on Germany.
While Chamberlain was boasting "Peace in our Time," Hitler told his generals, "Our enemies are little worms, I saw them in Munich."
I posted this bit of history because I have a really bad feeling between my shoulder blades as to what may be about to happen in the Middle East.
He could look at Europe today and see the same thing.
...my memory fails me....what was Chuchill's now-famous reply to these words..... something about having chosen dishonor (or, "dishonour"....), AND having war....?
Thanks for the posting..... I'm not all that optomistic about the middle east, either.... I think Israel is going to be pressured to enter into a cease-fire, and all that will do is give her enemies time to regroup their forces....
Yes. Quite amazing how history repeats itself isn't it? We are headed for a much larger war. While we have an army overthere and Israel is prepared to take out the terrorists in Lebanon now is the time to finish it. But we won't.
It will take the atomic bombing of an American city and probably Tel Aviv too before the liberals in this country recognize the need to get this done.
Roughly:
"They had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor. They will get war."
Quite prophetic, which doesn't mean it applies to every situation. The jihadists don't even remotely resemble the military threat the Nazis did.
..yes, I believe your quote (or paraphrase) of Mr. Churchill's statement is quite so...... I simply do not understand the logic in holding Israel as the guilty party in all this, and viewing these radical Mooselimbs as more-or-less "freedom fighters"..... I hope the IDF waxes their collective a**es....!!
I am not sure even that will work because I talked to a liberal today who still insists that Kerry would have done a better job. He didn't know how, but he did say he couldn't see how things could be worse than they are under Bush(couldn't get him to enumerate the bad things, he just knows things are bad), I asked him if he remembered Carter and he just shut up and walked off. No answer to that one!
My point is, they still think Bush is a bad President and Kerry would have "fixed" things, they cannot see an inch in front of their nosesf. I am not sure even a nuke would get them to admit they are wrong, witness the denial that the shooting in Seatlle wasn't terrorist related.
The IDF would, if they weren't hiding behind women and children.
Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have....
This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
The whole of the speech is here:
The British Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement
In it, he points out with a great deal of forsight the strategic consequences of England and France having appeased Hitler.
Socialist Euroweasel Idiots. What can't they just die!
Actually, the German admiralty was dismayed that war started when it did in 1929. It was aiming for 1945 when it would have had a better fleet, including aircraft carriers.
I will go out on a limb and say that had Britain and France displayed moral fibre, Hitler would have backed down. Then when war finally came Czechoslovakia would have been an ally with an intact army instead of an occupied nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.