Turns out, Chamberlain wasn't the fool I thought he was.

[The_Tim]

Churchill did not sell Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria to the wolves...Massive hole in your train of thought is why is Poland, the nation Britain went to war to save not included, as well as all the other eastern European countries the Soviets occupied after WW2?

Churchill wanted all the European nations and the Balkans to be freed from the soviets as he saw the threat from the soviets and had a general idea what was going to happen with the cold war, yet at the point the fate of the occupied countries were being decided, essentially the Yalta conference, Roosevelt sidelined Churchill and did most of the negotiating in secret meetings with Stalin, which Churchill wasan't invited to.

For Yugoslavia in particular the country, or specifically Tito, the person in charge of the country was happy to be in the Soviet sphere and interestingly wasn't actually occupied like the rest of the nations the Soviets brought into their sphere.

Bulgaria and Romania were actually part of the Axis, we can discuss the technicalities of how much choice they had in that as it is also complex but in the end they were part of the defeated nations who fought against Russia and thus it is extremely hard for Britain and America plea for their freedom after the war.

Stalin also had the upperhand in the post war negotiations because he was the last of the "Big Three" left with Roosevelt obviously dying and a new post war primie minster voted in Britain.

I mean Churchill literally did do what I said, during the '44 Moscow Conference with he Percentages Agreement which consisted of(quoting from the wikipedia article)

• Romania = 90% Russian and 10% The Others,[4]
• Greece = 90% Great Britain (in accord with USA) and Russian 10%,[4]
• Yugoslavia = 50-50%,[4]
• Hungary = 50-50%,[4]
• Bulgaria = 75% Russian and 25% The Others,[4] and
• Poland is 'briefly discussed before moving on to the Balkans' – according to the 1974 journal article by Albert Resis on the 1953 vol. 6 memoirs, Triumph and Tragedy, by Winston Churchill.[4] The known status of Poland after the war shows that Churchill did not press Soviet expectations and capitulated on the matter swiftly.

that was the initial starting point, of which during the negotiations Churchill traded away all of the Allied percentages of Romania, 5 Percent of Bulgaria, and thirty Percent of Hungary to preserve the share in Greece. I mean if selling out Hungary to be firmly in the grasp of the Soviets. Furthermore, the Polish Govn't in Exile-the decedent of the government that was in charge at the start of the war was basically dropped and had the Rug Pulled from under it with little to no effort to at least have them attempt to be part of Polish Politics after the war, essentially ceding Poland to the Soviet's puppet Communist Government(which these two are very much separate entities, as part of the reason the Warsaw Uprising failed-the lack of effort or will to aid the polish uprising by Soviet Forces fighting in Central Poland was due to the Polish Communist Govn't claiming that the Polish Govn't in Exile and Home Army were Reactionaries, Fascists, and Collaborators pretty much ever since the communist Polish Govn't existed since '41 IIRC) I'd call that quite a betrayal myself.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

The "reason" for or the intention of the maginot line is very hard to pin down and depends on who you ask and at what point.

I suppose. It's just that some "popular" sources (like wiki) claim "delay" as intention. And, despite few blunders and overreliance on western sources, these guys seem fairly adequate:

(among other things, this claims that France did fortify their entire border and that the plan was to rely on army to stop the enemy from the start)

If that is true, Maginot seems to have done more than an adequate job. And while it might be an overpiced behemoth that sucked budget out of the military, in case of Schoenenbourg, at least, investment seems to have paid off - even with attacks being just a distraction.

The political considerations of the time seem to be portrayed as "our military is more of a threat":

so any kind of non-defensive spending was out of the question anyway, and they had to somehow protect their industry at the border - hence the line.

 

[Gran Strategist]

I mean Churchill literally did do what I said, during the '44 Moscow Conference with he Percentages Agreement which consisted of(quoting from the wikipedia article)

• Romania = 90% Russian and 10% The Others,[4]
• Greece = 90% Great Britain (in accord with USA) and Russian 10%,[4]
• Yugoslavia = 50-50%,[4]
• Hungary = 50-50%,[4]
• Bulgaria = 75% Russian and 25% The Others,[4] and
• Poland is 'briefly discussed before moving on to the Balkans' – according to the 1974 journal article by Albert Resis on the 1953 vol. 6 memoirs, Triumph and Tragedy, by Winston Churchill.[4] The known status of Poland after the war shows that Churchill did not press Soviet expectations and capitulated on the matter swiftly.

that was the initial starting point, of which during the negotiations Churchill traded away all of the Allied percentages of Romania, 5 Percent of Bulgaria, and thirty Percent of Hungary to preserve the share in Greece. I mean if selling out Hungary to be firmly in the grasp of the Soviets. Furthermore, the Polish Govn't in Exile-the decedent of the government that was in charge at the start of the war was basically dropped and had the Rug Pulled from under it with little to no effort to at least have them attempt to be part of Polish Politics after the war, essentially ceding Poland to the Soviet's puppet Communist Government(which these two are very much separate entities, as part of the reason the Warsaw Uprising failed-the lack of effort or will to aid the polish uprising by Soviet Forces fighting in Central Poland was due to the Polish Communist Govn't claiming that the Polish Govn't in Exile and Home Army were Reactionaries, Fascists, and Collaborators pretty much ever since the communist Polish Govn't existed since '41 IIRC) I'd call that quite a betrayal myself.

While this offer was proposed it was a single page in a very long winded and complex negotiation and situation.

At this point Russia had allowed the Warsaw uprising to be crushed, which Churchill tried to support as best he could but the Russians denied the British use of airfields nearby so the British were powerless to do much of use, as Stalin wanted to take over the country and it was obvious was interested in using the war to expand Russias sphere of influence rather to liberate occupied countries.

The western allies also realized that unless they actually occupied territory at the end of the war it would be extremely hard if not impossible to pry it from the Russian grip short of going to war against Russia and it was obvious a invasion of Greece and into the balkans was simply not possible thus Russia would occupy that territory.

In this context this proposal was Churchills attempt to get Stalin to agree to allowing the western allies at least a foothold in the region in the hope they could at least influence the future of those countries.

As it happened this agreement was essentially reneged by Stalin anyway.

Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were brought fully under the wing of Russia, Yugoslavia under Tito voluntarily joined the Soviet sphere and for some reason Stalin actually gave up Greece which was likely as America wanted Russia to join the war against Japan and Stalin saw giving small concessions at the edge of their occupied territory in the European sphere was worth it for the additional influence in the Asian sphere Russia would gain by carrying on some pretense of cooperation and then joining the war against Japan.

Now was it morally wrong that these countries were allowed to slip behind the iron curtain. Of course it was but sadly the real world is often harsh and not the way we would like it to be.

Short of going to war with Russia, in the context that in the minds of the public at least "Uncle Joe" had been a friend and ally and the world had just finished a 6 year war, there was no desire or reality of another war with Russia, which there was certainly no guarantee of being able to win, being sold to and agreed to by the public.

Hence we got the cold war and the oppression of millions of people by the Russians.

If anyone is to blame for the fate of those countries it is Stalin.

 

[The_Tim]

While this offer was proposed it was a single page in a very long winded and complex negotiation and situation.

Yes, just a single page that Churchill ended up specifically regretting

not to mention there was no attempt of the UK to have the elections in the Eastern European Countries be even remotely fair instead of a farce

oh, and the fact that the Soviets did little to support the Greek Communists during the Greek Civil War.....

totally didn't have any effect, not any at all


Regardless, I do also put blame on Stalin for being well.... Evil. the stuff he did is horrendous, but just because he is evil doesn't mean I can't blame or dislike Churchill for the actions he knowingly took and influenced British Policy at least seemingly accordingly with that mere piece of paper and I can blame him for not even making a symbolic gesture to prevent the subjugation of these nations after World War II. Simply Put I think Churchill was an arsehole, Incredibly Callous, Imperialistic, and Self-Centered. But I also think he was the person for the job to keep Britain's Spirit in the war.

 

[Indyclone77]

There's a reason he has the rearmament trait after all

 

[Glassius]

he was actually quite surprised when Britain and France declared war after he invaded Poland, to the point that there were virtually no forces defending the French German border

22 divisions was not "literally nothing"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

If they just let Hitler take Poland, I would assume it would be the USSR that Hitler would invade next, not the western powers. That would just be a Germany VS USSR war, not a allies and USSR VS Germany war.

Here we are entering "what if". Even in middle of September Hitler was considering establishing collaboration government in Poland, just like he did with France. Such a government would be a buffer from Soviets. That is one of the reasons Stalin wanted pact with Germany: to not fight Poland, supplied by Germany.

The contributions of the Polish intelligence service, including the Bombe codebreaker machine. If Poland was not defended, would those still have happened ?

Poles gave Enigma replicas and plans for more advanced Bomba codebreaker machine on 24th July 1939. So, British cancellation of guarantees should have happen after that date for that alternative scenario. Also, breaking Enigma codes did not affect war that much. For example, intelligence did not know about German controffensive in Ardennes.

 

[Provolution]

Chamberlain wasn't as naive as modern handsight makes him to be. His plan was to wait and outproduce Germany. And wasn't under the illusion that Germany would stop.
Chamberlain believed that by 1941 England and France would easily outproduce Germany.

His biggest fault was starting the war right in 1939 over Poland.
Had he had started the war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, he would have had a much higher chance of success, as the Germany of 1938 wasn't the Germany of 1939.
Had he had waited and sacrificed Poland, England and France would have been able to easily outproduce Germany by 1941 although temporarily sacrificing eastern nations.

Chamberlain's fault wasn't of stupidity. But of bad timing. Starting the war earlier would have been better. Starting the war later would have been better.

In fact, Chamberlain's fault may have been that he didn't carry his original plan to its end.

I feel like this deserves as special Chamberlain path of the focus tree, I want to play Chamberlain to the end now.

If Chamberlain lived today, he would be running in the skirts of Greta Thunberg and "greenwashing" all kinds of businesses, pushing the energy crisis of the German windmills etc, as he as to the core, an idealist opportunist and hypocrite, speaking of higher values like peace and democracy, without taking a stand for the Germans, Austrians, Czechs and the Jews, and so on. If he ruled UK today, Putin would have had a field day. Churchill was, and still is, the best and only show in town!

 

[XselenS]

Because appeasement worked so well for Austria, Ethiopia, China, and Czechoslovakia doubling down on Poland would have been even more successful in ensuring a lasting world peace.

This argument is just as irrational as armouring the planes where the bullet holes were. Ward knew better.

Counterintuitive even. War is peace? Very Orwellian. And all Hitler brought to the table was war. Alongside the rest of the Axis powers. Before 1939 and no doubt after even if Poland was "sacrificed".

Take care and exercise caution when watching a YouTube video claiming to have the answers. History is not so simple as to be packed into one man's 30 minute opinion. It's the same ideologue that breeds contempt and resentment we have seen so many times in the world. After watching that video, use it as a gateway to learn more and delve deeper into history.

Because watching a video is easy. And easy doesn't lead to the right answer, it leads to the comfortable one.

 

[kettyo]

One more thing you never should forget is that Chamberlain wasn't an absolute monarch who could do whatever he wanted. The vast majority of the public and most of the elite have opposed the war just 20 years after Paschendale. No survivors of the Great War and their relatives wanted to send their children again to the meatgrinders (as everyone expected the same meatgrinders to reopen in case of a major war with Germany). So the policy of the Chamberlain cabinet wasn't really appeasement (it was called so only by their opponents) but indeed it was political and diplomatic maneuvering under heavy constraints. Only the fall of France has changed this general attitude dramatically as no one expected that France could actually fall and so people started to feel like if this has happened then Britain might come next. So there was probably no real alternative to the policy of heavy rearmament and diplomatic maneuvering which he did. Could the latter part been done better? Certainly but his task wasn't an easy one by any means and for sure he did his best.

I think all of Chamberlain, Churchill, and Lord Halifax were many miles better politicians than any of the contemporary ones thankfully.

 

[Husein]

Britain had 17 monoplane fighters at the time of Munich. Before departing for negotiations Chamberlain explicitly asked if Royal Airforce is capable of defending Britain as well as combating luftwaffe. The answer he got was absolutely not. Yes he sold out the Czechs but the time he bought with that created the Air Force that won the battle of Britain and forever gimped the Germans in the air. The time he bought gave further time for British industry to kick into high gear and rearmament. You can't undo 20 years of lack of investment on a whim. Even after Chamberlain there wasn't a single straight up fight Britain won until Americans got involved. It simply wasn't possible. And while Churchill was willing to sell off the empire to win the war Chamberlain and others weren't.

 

[Gran Strategist]

Britain had 17 monoplane fighters at the time of Munich. Before departing for negotiations Chamberlain explicitly asked if Royal Airforce is capable of defending Britain as well as combating luftwaffe. The answer he got was absolutely not. Yes he sold out the Czechs but the time he bought with that created the Air Force that won the battle of Britain and forever gimped the Germans in the air. The time he bought gave further time for British industry to kick into high gear and rearmament. You can't undo 20 years of lack of investment on a whim. Even after Chamberlain there wasn't a single straight up fight Britain won until Americans got involved. It simply wasn't possible. And while Churchill was willing to sell off the empire to win the war Chamberlain and others weren't.

hmm...smattering of truth with no context.

For some context, until the mid 1930's specifically and even into the start of the war the ethos "the bomber will always get through" was the driving force behind many air forces, including Britains. This was based on the fact that bomber technology outstripped fighter technology up to the mid 1930's and predominantly modern bombers were faster than modern fighters. Britain (as well as France) had a significant bomber force which (assuming that doctrine to be true) it could wave at Germany as a show of force. Only with the advent on monoplanes and more advanced engines did fighters start to out perform bombers and even then the general thought was "the bomber will always get through". That ethos is equivalent to the post war ethos of mutually assured destruction. Fighters simply weren't seen as important by many nations and to a great degree Britain and the world is lucky that visionaries in the RAF like Hugh Dowding predominantly but also others, saw the potential and importance of fighters.
Even with the advent of fighter command and modern aircraft like the Hurricane and Spitfire many still believed the bomber would always get through and to a certain degee that ethos was true.

That lessons the importance (at the time) of having a understrength fighter command in negotiaions with Hitler.

Even if we go along the line that Chamberlain was buying time and he understood the importance of fighters. He was fooled by Hitler to the degree he waved his special piece of paper to the world and declared "peace in our time" as the great peacemaker. So he either believed that and was fooled by Hitler or didn't believe that but delcared to the world he did, knowing full well it was false and thus made a fool of himself.

Now if we go into the introduction of modern aircraft by the British. While they were in the pipeline, in 1938 they were not really a priority and the government (of which Chamberlain was the head of) were dragging it's feet about commiting to them. For the sake of balance Chamberlain did have "quiet rearmament" during this period although there was reluctance for full rearmament partly so as not to be seen as provoking Germany but also as the nation was trying to avoid war in general and admittedly there was not a lot of national support for rearmament. It was only with the full takeover of Czechoslovakia and it becoming undeniable there wouldn't be "peace in our time" that the British governemt fully got behind fighter production and deployment. This goes against the defense of Chamberlain that he knew what was coming and simply buying time.

Moving to Churchill and his views on Empire. This was one of the ways he was quite backward in that he fully believed in Empire. Part of the reason he commited to the Med theatre and also to the war against Japan in particular was he wanted to keep the British Empire intact.

Now he did make agreements during the war and also oversaw much of the break up of the Empire after the war during his second term but this was not by choice but by reality and pragmatism. This can be seen as one of Churchill's positive attributes as he was usually able to see past what he personally wanted and be able to see the reality around him and act on that reality even if he didn't agree with it.

It became clear during the war that Britain, even with the support of America could not fight the war without the 'help' of the Empire. Much of the Empire was already well on it's way to becoming fully independent.e.g. Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand to name the most obvious and India had a growing independence movement. It was obvious Britain needed Indian manpower in the pacific and an agreement was made to work towards independance after the war which was an obvious and inevitable future and Churchill, even if not agreeing with it would have been a fool not to agree as Britain had no real prospect of holding India in the Empire anymore and his aim was to try to keep India under the British wing at least.

Many other nations in the Empire gained independance after the war simply because Britain was in effect bankrupt from the war and could not enforce the Empire anymore. Made worse by the fact that America held the purse strings to Europe and disagreed with the old Empires of France and Britain and was in fact active in trying to disolve them in the spirit of self governance for the world. With the irony being that America could not see that before and after the war it essentially had a policy of Empire itself. Acting as "protector" to various nations and (even to this day) promoting regime change in countries to in effect put them in Americas pocket.

 

[Husein]

hmm...smattering of truth with no context.

For some context, until the mid 1930's specifically and even into the start of the war the ethos "the bomber will always get through" was the driving force behind many air forces, including Britains. This was based on the fact that bomber technology outstripped fighter technology up to the mid 1930's and predominantly modern bombers were faster than modern fighters. Britain (as well as France) had a significant bomber force which (assuming that doctrine to be true) it could wave at Germany as a show of force. Only with the advent on monoplanes and more advanced engines did fighters start to out perform bombers and even then the general thought was "the bomber will always get through". That ethos is equivalent to the post war ethos of mutually assured destruction. Fighters simply weren't seen as important by many nations and to a great degree Britain and the world is lucky that visionaries in the RAF like Hugh Dowding predominantly but also others, saw the potential and importance of fighters.
Even with the advent of fighter command and modern aircraft like the Hurricane and Spitfire many still believed the bomber would always get through and to a certain degee that ethos was true.

That lessons the importance (at the time) of having a understrength fighter command in negotiaions with Hitler.

Even if we go along the line that Chamberlain was buying time and he understood the importance of fighters. He was fooled by Hitler to the degree he waved his special piece of paper to the world and declared "peace in our time" as the great peacemaker. So he either believed that and was fooled by Hitler or didn't believe that but delcared to the world he did, knowing full well it was false and thus made a fool of himself.

Now if we go into the introduction of modern aircraft by the British. While they were in the pipeline, in 1938 they were not really a priority and the government (of which Chamberlain was the head of) were dragging it's feet about commiting to them. For the sake of balance Chamberlain did have "quiet rearmament" during this period although there was reluctance for full rearmament partly so as not to be seen as provoking Germany but also as the nation was trying to avoid war in general and admittedly there was not a lot of national support for rearmament. It was only with the full takeover of Czechoslovakia and it becoming undeniable there wouldn't be "peace in our time" that the British governemt fully got behind fighter production and deployment. This goes against the defense of Chamberlain that he knew what was coming and simply buying time.

Moving to Churchill and his views on Empire. This was one of the ways he was quite backward in that he fully believed in Empire. Part of the reason he commited to the Med theatre and also to the war against Japan in particular was he wanted to keep the British Empire intact.

Now he did make agreements during the war and also oversaw much of the break up of the Empire after the war during his second term but this was not by choice but by reality and pragmatism. This can be seen as one of Churchill's positive attributes as he was usually able to see past what he personally wanted and be able to see the reality around him and act on that reality even if he didn't agree with it.

It became clear during the war that Britain, even with the support of America could not fight the war without the 'help' of the Empire. Much of the Empire was already well on it's way to becoming fully independent.e.g. Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand to name the most obvious and India had a growing independence movement. It was obvious Britain needed Indian manpower in the pacific and an agreement was made to work towards independance after the war which was an obvious and inevitable future and Churchill, even if not agreeing with it would have been a fool not to agree as Britain had no real prospect of holding India in the Empire anymore and his aim was to try to keep India under the British wing at least.

Many other nations in the Empire gained independance after the war simply because Britain was in effect bankrupt from the war and could not enforce the Empire anymore. Made worse by the fact that America held the purse strings to Europe and disagreed with the old Empires of France and Britain and was in fact active in trying to disolve them in the spirit of self governance for the world. With the irony being that America could not see that before and after the war it essentially had a policy of Empire itself. Acting as "protector" to various nations and (even to this day) promoting regime change in countries to in effect put them in Americas pocket.

1. That is what military experience at the time was telling them. They do not have the benefit of 70-80 years of historical research telling them every single detail and actual reality of German warmaking situation. All the military leadership that Chamberlain relied on estimated about 150-170 000 dead from bombing every single week. You know what it would take even today for any country in the world to accept such losses and decide to go to war anyway?

2. If he truly believed in peace in our time why did he ramp up the rearmament even more? Why didn't he, like so many before him just drop the funding for the military if he believed he achieved the peace in our time? No people wanted a war at the time. If you listened to the speech the cheers were deafening. No one wanted another Sarajevo, a world war over something that could be avoided. Either Hitler keeps to the agreement in which case it's a great success and war is avoided, or he doesn't and it's made clear to everyone that he can't be negotiated with or sated.

3. Believe or don't the fact is he relied fully on America joining the war and winning it that way. Churchill himself admits Britain has no chance of winning the war on it's own and that he is simply waiting for the new world to rescue the old. In the meantime he did pinprick attacks in secondary theaters while paying in Gold for american surplus weapons. His spending beggared the empire. Literally. And all for nothing - America in December 1941 was no closer to declaring war on Germany that it was in 1939 - it took Germany declaring war on them to actually join the war.

4. Yes it was bankrupt. My point exactly. And then Britain was forced to decolonize by US, same as France since US didn't want any potential rivals to its hegemony. You're admitting my points but arguing over it. Why?

 

[Harin]

4. Yes it was bankrupt. My point exactly. And then Britain was forced to decolonize by US, same as France since US didn't want any potential rivals to its hegemony. You're admitting my points but arguing over it. Why?

Would you provide some sources describing the U.S. forcing the UK and France to decolonize for the purpose you stated? I must admit, I did not know that. Did it happen right after the war, so it could be a potential feature in a future DLC? After playing Ethiopia several times, their colonies get in the way so bad.

 

[Gran Strategist]

1. That is what military experience at the time was telling them. They do not have the benefit of 70-80 years of historical research telling them every single detail and actual reality of German warmaking situation. All the military leadership that Chamberlain relied on estimated about 150-170 000 dead from bombing every single week. You know what it would take even today for any country in the world to accept such losses and decide to go to war anyway?

2. If he truly believed in peace in our time why did he ramp up the rearmament even more? Why didn't he, like so many before him just drop the funding for the military if he believed he achieved the peace in our time? No people wanted a war at the time. If you listened to the speech the cheers were deafening. No one wanted another Sarajevo, a world war over something that could be avoided. Either Hitler keeps to the agreement in which case it's a great success and war is avoided, or he doesn't and it's made clear to everyone that he can't be negotiated with or sated.

3. Believe or don't the fact is he relied fully on America joining the war and winning it that way. Churchill himself admits Britain has no chance of winning the war on it's own and that he is simply waiting for the new world to rescue the old. In the meantime he did pinprick attacks in secondary theaters while paying in Gold for american surplus weapons. His spending beggared the empire. Literally. And all for nothing - America in December 1941 was no closer to declaring war on Germany that it was in 1939 - it took Germany declaring war on them to actually join the war.

4. Yes it was bankrupt. My point exactly. And then Britain was forced to decolonize by US, same as France since US didn't want any potential rivals to its hegemony. You're admitting my points but arguing over it. Why?

1. Your original simplistic premise was that Chamberlain was simply buying time because Britain didn't have enough modern fighters to defend itself. I pointed out that premise was flawed because of the military thinking of the time said the bomber would always get through and thus not having fighters to defend Britain meant very little as the thinking was they couldn't stop the bombers anyway, which you seem to be confirming. And Britain and France had a significant bomber force already thus the original premise is flawed.

2. Generally fair point and in the context of the time most of the nation supported aiming for peace. Unlike the rest of the nation though he was head of the government and had much more information available to him than most of the nation and had dealt directly with Hitler. After the first world war it is understandable for the nation not to want to go through that again but as the leader of the nation with all the information and resources available to him, it was Chamberlains job to see danger coming and protect the nation from it. He failed in that mission.

While rearmament did increase it was at a very slow pace until after Hitler fully annexed Czechslovakia by which time it was undeniable that war was coming. There is nothing special in doing the obvious.

3. When you say 'he' relied solely on America joining i assume we are purely talking about Churchill here. It is common knowledge that Churchills (and Roosevelts) whole plan was to bring America into the war as it was the only way Britain could hope to win the war as even with the resources of the empire Britain simply had no possibility of invading Europe and retaking it.

As for beggaring Britain, What exactly else was he meant to do other than capitulate? And it did keep Britain in the war until America did join, even if it took a declaration from Germany to officially join the war in Europe but Roosevelt was determined to join the war in Europe and was even quasi fighting the war in Europe years before America officially joined. Most actively in escorting convoys. When Hitler declared war Donitz somply pointed out he had been at war with the Americans for over a year.

With Roosevelt in charge America would have joined eventually he had been steering America toward joining since the start of the war, it just so happened Hitler made it easy for Roosevelt by declaring war for him.

4. You seemed to be blaming Churchill for ending the empire, stating that Churchill was was willing to sell off the empire to win the war but Chamberlain and others weren't. I was pointing out context and that it wasn't that simple. Churchill wasn't simply willing to sell off the empire and in fact fought hard to keep it together as he was a believer in the British empire. The empire was already dying. The first world war had already started the ball rolling and the second world war was just a further catalyst in its demise. It would have ended whoever was in charge so blaming Churchill is just plane incorrect.