DOCSLIB.ORG

"Peace for Our Time," September 30, 1938 the Following Statement Was

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
"Peace for Our Time," September 30, 1938 http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/peacetime.html The following statement was made by British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, in front of #10 Downing Street, London, after his arrival home from the notorious Munich Conference of 1938 We, the German Fuhrer 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. My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is "peace for our time." Go home and get a nice quiet sleep Chamberlain Says Peace – Calypso Egbert Moore Lord Beginner with chorus Accompanied by John “Buddy” Williams and His Blue Rhythm Orchestra Disk Six: West Indian Rhythm: Trinidad Calypsos on World and Local Events featuring the censored recordings 1938-1940. Chamberlain says he only wants peace Please hold your hand, it is time to cease So he told them peace, only peace Don’t come on this bad track, only peace So he told them peace, only peace Don’t destroy the Europe, only peace And he told them hold up, only peace Chamberlain told them to realize These are the days we are civilize So he told them peace, only peace He told them consider, only peace Don’t slaughter your brother, only peace Put down the bayonet, only peace Don’t come with the hatchet, only peace So he told them peace, only peace Hitler said that he want more land But the Czech said they don’t understand So he told them peace, only peace He told them to hold up, only peace Don’t destroy Europe, only peace Remember the children, only peace The young generation, only peace So he told them peace, only peace Russia and France said we have to fight Chamberlain said it wouldn’t be right So he told them peace, only peace He went to see Hitler, only peace To cool down his temper, only peace To make him consider, only peace It was in September, only peace Chamberlain said don’t dig any drains Please don’t start up those aeroplances So he told them peace, only peace And he form a parley, only peace Not to kill nobody, only peace Just to stop the sneering only peace And stop the preparing, only peace So he told them peace, only peace Chamberlain said that he want more peace Please hold your hand, it’s time to cease So he told them peace, only peace Told them to consent, only peace To put down the armament, only peace Don’t come with the cannon, only peace And put down the wagon, only peace So he told them peace, only peace .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ten Propositions About Munich 1938 on the Fateful Event of Czech and European History – Without Legends and National Stereotypes
    Ten Propositions about Munich 1938 On the Fateful Event of Czech and European History – without Legends and National Stereotypes Vít Smetana The Munich conference of 29–30 September 1938, followed by forced cession of border regions of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany and subsequently also to Poland and Hungary, is unquestionably one of the crucial milestones of Czech and Czecho- slovak history of the 20th century, but also an important moment in the history of global diplomacy, with long-term overlaps and echoes into international politics. In the Czech environment, round anniversaries of the dramatic events of 1938 repeatedly prompt emotional debates as to whether the nation should have put up armed resistance in the autumn of 1938. Such debates tend to be connected with strength comparisons of the Czechoslovak and German armies of the time, but also with considerations whether the “bent backbone of the nation” with all its impacts on the mental map of Europe and the Czech role in it was an acceptable price for saving an indeterminate number of human lives and preserving material assets and cultural and historical monuments and buildings all around the country. Last year’s 80th anniversary of the Munich Agreement was no exception. A change for the better was the attention that the media paid to the situation of post-Munich refugees from the border regions as well as to the fact that the Czechs rejected, immediately after Munich, humanist democracy and started building an authori- tarian state instead.1 The aim of this text is to deconstruct the most widespread 1 See, for example: ZÍDEK, Petr: Po Mnichovu začali Češi budovat diktaturu [The Czechs started building a dictatorship after Munich].
    [Show full text]
  • When States Appease: British Appeasement in the 1930S
    Trubowitz, Peter and Harris, Peter When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s. Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Trubowitz, Peter and Harris, Peter (2015) When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s. Review of International Studies, 41 (02). pp. 289-311. ISSN 0260-2105 DOI: 10.1017/S0260210514000278 © 2014 Cambridge This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61659/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s Peter Trubowitz London School of Economics and Political Science Peter Harris University of Texas at Austin Few grand strategies puzzle international relations scholars more than appeasement. Scholars have debated why states put their hopes in seemingly risky attempts to “buy off” foreign challengers ever since Neville Chamberlain unsuccessfully sought to mollify Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.1 Today, few analysts subscribe to the once-popular “guilty men” theory, which attributes appeasement to leaders’ personal failings.2 Instead, two general approaches delineate the contemporary study of appeasement.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloadable Reproducible Ebooks Sample Pages
    Downloadable Reproducible eBooks Sample Pages These sample pages from this eBook are provided for evaluation purposes. The entire eBook is available for purchase at www.socialstudies.com or www.writingco.com. To browse more eBook titles, visit http://www.socialstudies.com/ebooks.html To learn more about eBooks, visit our help page at http://www.socialstudies.com/ebookshelp.html For questions, please e-mail [email protected] To learn about new eBook and print titles, professional development resources, and catalogs in the mail, sign up for our monthly e-mail newsletter at http://socialstudies.com/newsletter/ Copyright notice: Copying of the book or its parts for resale is prohibited. Additional restrictions may be set by the publisher. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Teacher Introduction ................................................................................................. v Overview: The War in Europe .................................................................................. vii LESSONS 1. Appeasement Teacher Page ...................................................................................................... 1 Student Worksheet ............................................................................................... 3 2. The Battle of Britain Teacher Page ...................................................................................................... 5 Student Worksheet ............................................................................................... 7 3. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression
    [Show full text]
  • Peace for Our Time
    1 PEACE FOR OUR TIME I. THE IMPOTENCE OF OMNIPOTENCE A. THE UNUSABLE EMPIRE What tremendous power the British empire still seemed to have, in 1939! It was really the only actual world power. Japan was a regional power. Germany, a European power. It had no overseas colonies at all. As for the European countries with colonial empires... Spain? Portugal? Belgium? World powers that size you get in Crackerjack boxes. Even France’s colonies, had just half the people that the British empire had. But looks are deceiving. The Empire was desperately fragile. 2 India was nearly uncontrollable. The dominions weren’t colonies. They could walk out of the Empire any time they liked. They could sit out any war they didn’t think they could win. Ireland and South Africa were in the Empire only in name. Palestine was a drain, a headache, and a festering sore. On bad days, it was even worse. Cyprus was restless. Oh, there were quiet bits of empire – the West Indies, say, or Africa... No rebellions there, no uprisings, no immediate risk. They were a long way from being ready to turn into independent nations. They also weren’t much help. India, now... you could get an army of 260,000 there, ready for use. – as long as it was one of last century’s wars! It had no artillery. No tanks. [yer welcome!] 3 It was fit for police actions – nothing else. As for its air force... throw that against the Luftwaffe? And its navy ... against what could you throw it that it wouldn’t break? Well, if not ships nor men, how about money? Could you hock your empire in the pawnshop for the supplies you needed? On the ledgers, Britain was good for it.
    [Show full text]
  • Christening of the "U.S.S. Grand Rapids", Tacoma, WA, April 4, 1970” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box D28, folder “Christening of the "U.S.S. Grand Rapids", Tacoma, WA, April 4, 1970” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. [! 1\o-t"j r-a.r l ; ~ t ;. ~~ CHR ISTEN ING OF THE GUNBOAT "U.S. S. GRAND r 'I!_ RAPIDS" AT TACOMA, WASHINGTON, 3 P.M., P.S.T., SATURDAY, APRIL 4, 1970 . I A ' HIGHLY HONORED AND ~ ~OST PLEASED TO BE HERE ITH YOU AT THE CHRISTENING OF THIS SPLEND ID NE~ GUNBOAT, THE GRAND RAPIDS . I A ~ ESPECIALLY PLEASED THAT ~ ~Y DAUGHTER, SUSAN, ILL PERFOR THE TRADITIONAL CHORE OF BREAKING A BOTTLE OF CHA,PAGNE OVER THE 80~ OF THE GRAND RAPIDS . iHEN THE NAVY SENT SUSAN THE INVITATION TO BE THE SPONSOR OF THE GRAND RAPIDS, I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD ANY "UESTIONS . "JUST ONE," SHE SAID . "HO HARD DO I HAVE TO HIT THE BOAT IN ORDER TO KNOCK IT INTO THE .ATER ~ " IT IS SAID THAT A SHIP' S SPO~SOR Ir ~PARTS SOt\/.E OF HER PERSONALITY TO THE SHIP .­ SHE CHRISTENS .
    [Show full text]
  • We Shall Go on to the End": Winston Churchill and the Power of Communication in the Darkest Hours of World War II
    “We Shall Go on to the End": Winston Churchill and the Power of Communication in the Darkest Hours of World War II Guanqiao Huang Pacific Academy, Irvine, CA 1 “If you are going through hell, keep going.”1 --Winston Churchill Introduction Winston Churchill’s speeches symbolized Britain’s resolve in World War II. His speech “We Shall Go on to the End” marked a turning point in world history by changing Britain’s stand against Hitler from negotiation to confrontation. His inspired communication led Britain to victory, but his approach was doubted at the beginning of the crisis as few listened to him. In contrast, the British public was hoping for an effective appeasement policy. “Peace for our time,” British prime minister Neville Chamberlain confidently declared regarding the nonaggression pact signed between Germany and Britain on September 30, 1938.2 Everyone was excited to hear the news of peace, as the British had anticipated more conflict because of the painful memories of World War I. Chamberlain held the contract with Hitler’s signature, stating “the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.”3 At this moment, seeing the jubilant crowds, Chamberlain had no idea that he would resign, unable to fulfill his promise to keep peace. Furthermore, he would not even realize that his negligence would put the entire country in danger. Someone else would emerge to lead Britain to overcome obstacles in the next five years. On May 10, 1940, a new leader emerged, and Winston Churchill was inaugurated as prime minister.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or p o o r quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 I I 73-6537 BOONE, Jr., Jasper C., 1935- THE OBERSALZBERG: A CASE STUDY IN NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeasement to War ESSENTIAL QUESTION: WHY WERE the ALLIED POWERS RELUCTANT to START ANOTHER WAR? Rise of Dictators Around the World
    Appeasement to war ESSENTIAL QUESTION: WHY WERE THE ALLIED POWERS RELUCTANT TO START ANOTHER WAR? Rise of Dictators around the World Totalitarians took aggressive action in the 1930s. Overran Manchuria and eastern Military Japan China, with support of new leaders emperor Hirohito Rebuilt the military and invaded Germany Hitler the Rhineland Italy Mussolini Invaded and conquered Ethiopia After Lenin’s death, he leads the Russia Stalin Communists and consolidates power with the purge A new Fascist alliance • By the mid-1930s, the antidemocratic aggressive powers formed an alliance. Italy, Germany, and Japan became the Axis powers. • The Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis agreed to fight Soviet communism. • They also pledged not to interfere with one another’s plans for territorial expansion. Civil War in Spain • In 1931, conservative general Francisco Franco launched a revolt against the republic in 1936 and the Spanish Civil War became known as a “dress rehearsal” for world war 2. • Hitler and Mussolini sent arms and forces to support Franco, while the Soviet Union sent soldiers to help the Loyalists. • By 1939, Franco had won. He created a fascist dictatorship similar to those of Germany and Italy. Expansion Begins • Meanwhile, Hitler took aggressive steps to bring all German-speaking people into the Third Reich. • One of Hitler’s goals was the Anschluss, or union of Austria and Germany. In 1938, German troops entered Austria. • Although Hitler’s annexation of Austria violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Western democracies took no action other then a warning. Aggression Continues Hitler next threatened to annex the Sudetenland. Britain and France protested the taking of Czechoslovakia, but they were unwilling to go to war.
    [Show full text]
  • Cebtral Europe During the Interwar Period
    Jana Skerlova During the WW I – exile Polish National Comittee – Roman Dmowski – the spokesman for Polish nationalism in the Allied camp After german victory on the Eastern front the Russian-ruled territory of Poland was occupied by German troops – The Kingdom of Poland consisting of German, Austrian and Russian part of Poland was established in 1916 – German puppet state – Mitteleuropa scheme More than 1 000 000 of Poles died during the WW I December 1918 – The Greater Poland Uprising – against Germany, with the centre in the city of Poznan, succesfull the Treaty of Versailles granted a reconstituted Poland the area won by the Polish uprising plus some additional territory, most of which had been part of Poland before the partitions (from the end of 18th century) the Republic of Poland was reestablished in 1918 he independence of Poland was one of the war goals of the Allies (it was mentioned in President Wilson’s Fourteen Points) The western Polish borders and the borders in Baltic area were ratified by the Treaty of Versailles while the eastern and southern borders were not. Republic of Poland and its neighboring states after WW 1. 27 milion of inhabitants in 1921 (35 milion in 1939) Multinational country - one third of its population were national minorities • Ukrainians – 14 % • Jews – 10 % (by 1931 Poland had the biggest Jewish population in the world – over 3 milion people) • Belarusians – 3 % • Germans – 2 % • Others (Czechs, Lithuanians, Russians) – 3 % 1919 – the first elections to the Sejm (parliament) 1921 – the March Constitution The Republic of Poland was a parliamentary democracy form 1919 till 1926 Main political parties – National Democrats, Peasant Parties, Christian Democrats Several regional conflicts with neigboring states – border disputes: Polish- Lithuanian War – spring 1919 – November 1920 • April 1919 – Poland captured Vilnius • 1922 – annexation of Vilnius (Vilno) Region from Lithuania • The dispute over Vilnius remained one of the biggest foreign policy issues in Lithuania and Poland.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms, Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan Herman Paul Morris 1968
    This dissertation has been microiilmed exactly as received 68-727 MORRIS, Herman Paul, 1938- A HISTORY OF BRITISH HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE MUNICH CRISIS. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1967 History, modem University Microfilms, Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan Herman Paul Morris 1968 All Rights Reserved THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A HISTORY OF BRITISH HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE MUNICH CRISIS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY HERMAN PAUL MORRIS Norman, Oklahoma 1967 A HISTORY OF BRITISH HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE MUNICH CRISIS APPROVED BY A ^ /< x /c'Al - DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PREFACE My purpose in this study is to show the development of British historiography of the Munich Crisis of 1938. To accomplish this, I trace British historians, diplomats, journalists, and politicians' interpretations of Munich through successive phases of British history from 1938 to 1965» Emphasis is placed on the forces which have influenced British writing and speech-making on Munich: personal polit­ ical opinions, Britain's social and political structure, Britain's world position, and the British traditions of Munich historiography. I attempt to show that these fac­ tors are different in Britain than in either Europe or Amer­ ica and that British writers' conclusions are largely deter­ mined by such influences. Thus, hopefully I establish the existence of a unique historiography of Munich in Britain. The main body of the study is primarily concerned with two products of this uniqueness; the rise of a revisionary treatment of the origins of the Second World War, and the tendency to see Munich as an historical model for present policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Munich Agreement
    Munich Agreement independence. Long concerned about German Background intentions, the Czechoslovaks had constructed Having occupied Austria in March 1938, Adolf the bulk of their border defenses in the Hitler turned his attention to the ethnically mountains of the Sudetenland. Also, they were German Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. able to secure military alliances with France and Since its formation at the end of World War I, the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia had been wary of possible German advances. This was largely due to Tensions Rise: unrest in the Sudetenland which was fomented Assessing the situation in 1938, Hitler ordered by the Sudeten German Party. Formed in 1931, his generals to begin making plans for an the party worked to bring the region under invasion of the Sudetenland and instructed the German control. Though not recognized by the Sudeten German Party to cause trouble. It was Czechoslovak government, it was strongly Hitler's hope that those supporters would supported among Sudeten Germans. foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovaks were unable to control the The loss of the Sudetenland was strongly region and provide an excuse for the German opposed by the Czechoslovak government as Army to cross the border. In response to the the region contained a vast array of natural actions of the party, the Czechoslovak resources, as well as a significant amount of the government was forced to declare martial law nation's industry and banks. In addition, as in the region. Following this decision, Hitler Czechoslovakia was a polyglot country, there began demanding that the Sudetenland were concerns about other minorities seeking immediately be turned over to Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of WWII
    Teacher Overview Objectives: Causes of WWII NYS Social Studies Framework Alignment: Key Idea Conceptual Understanding Content Specification 10.5 UNRESOLVED GLOBAL 10.5a International competition, Students will compare and contrast CONFLICT (1914–1945): World War I fueled by nationalism, imperialism, long- and short-term causes and and World War II led to geopolitical and militarism along with shifts in the effects of World War I and World War changes, human and environmental balance of power and alliances, led to II. devastation, and attempts to bring world wars. stability and peace. (Standards: 2, 3, 4, 5; Themes: TCC, GEO, GOV, CIV, TECH, EXCH) Objective Guiding Question and Activity Description Explain how the causes of WWII led to the start of the What caused WWII? conflict. ● primary and secondary source analysis ● graphic organizer ● video analysis ● formative writing task ● Regents MC questions What caused WWII? Objectives: Explain how the causes of WWII led to the start of the conflict. ​ Introduction Directions: Read through the scenario below and answer the questions that follow. On the first day of school, all the students signed a classroom contract promising to respect one another and resolve conflicts without fighting. If fighting occurs, the contract stated that the principal would call the family for a conference and there would be further consequences. Greg is a 10th grader who is still mad about last year because he felt like he was always blamed for starting problems and, as a result, he wasn’t allowed to attend any of the school field trips or go to school dances. Greg didn’t want to sign the contract, but he did anyway.
    [Show full text]