The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
Because the lack of readiness was his fault, first as Chancellor then as PM.
Well, yes, he could certainly have done more earlier. but it's the appeasement itself that he's judged harshly for.
Here, it will be interesting to see how things develop differently from this point as the war clouds gather.
September 1938
"Peace in our time"
September 1939
"Consequently this country is now at war with Germany"
March 1940
"Hitler has missed the bus"
Strike 3 you're out.
"Peace in our time"
September 1939
"Consequently this country is now at war with Germany"
March 1940
"Hitler has missed the bus"
Strike 3 you're out.
The historical view on Chamberlain goes one of two ways when it comes to 1938. Either he was a canny political operator that was buying time for Britain to rearm and has been unfairly judged for it. Or he was so unwilling to contemplate another war that he was willing to believe that appeasement and a mostly paper deterrent force was sufficient to guarantee it and therefore hamstrung his nation for a war that came anyway.
Personally I don't see a lot of evidence for the former. Its true Britain was not prepared in 1938. This was partially due to Chamberlains own efforts but he was not alone in not seeing the danger coming so maybe he gets a pass for that. But after 1938 the expansions he undertook seem more to me like he was trying to build a deterrent force than an actual combat force. And he kind of consistently came back to the belief that the war would be short, if it came, in spite of the facts around him.
I think Chamberlain wanted peace. He wanted it badly enough that he was willing to believe that it was possible and that everyone else wanted peace just as badly. It is not a bad trait to have, until it moves into delusion.
Personally I don't see a lot of evidence for the former. Its true Britain was not prepared in 1938. This was partially due to Chamberlains own efforts but he was not alone in not seeing the danger coming so maybe he gets a pass for that. But after 1938 the expansions he undertook seem more to me like he was trying to build a deterrent force than an actual combat force. And he kind of consistently came back to the belief that the war would be short, if it came, in spite of the facts around him.
I think Chamberlain wanted peace. He wanted it badly enough that he was willing to believe that it was possible and that everyone else wanted peace just as badly. It is not a bad trait to have, until it moves into delusion.
Chatillon............Of course, one other possibility is after famous battles.. Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo..
Much like the average Cavalry officer then. At least the products of the public schools, known as "Wooperts" and "Wodneys". ETA the officers not the school
Last edited:
For the names of tanks maybe use the names of weapons or warriors. One set for cruiser tanks, one for the infantry version.
Names used by the RN for the former include:
Broadsword, Battleaxe Claymore, Cutlass, Dagger, Rapier, Sabre, and of course Scimitar as the CVR(T). Lots more like that.
For the "warrior" group names like Archer, Avenger plus all the Tribal names. A Gurkha tank anyone?
Names used by the RN for the former include:
Broadsword, Battleaxe Claymore, Cutlass, Dagger, Rapier, Sabre, and of course Scimitar as the CVR(T). Lots more like that.
For the "warrior" group names like Archer, Avenger plus all the Tribal names. A Gurkha tank anyone?
Slightly tongue in cheek - Hard-charging Army officers; Picton, Uxbridge, Prince Rupert, Cardigan and Scarlett???
Reporting names for German tanks (ala the use of mens and womens names for Japanese aircraft IOTL) perhaps?
I have to say using human names for tanks is just terrible, just look at what the US did with their carriers, they don't have this weight to it unlike the names use from pre-WW2.
To be honest naming ships after admirals still sound off even if turn into legend as it go through fighting.
To be honest naming ships after admirals still sound off even if turn into legend as it go through fighting.
Chamberlain comes in for a lot of stick IMO. Personally, I suspect he was a victim, as much as anyone was of Hitler's aggression. He ended up losing the Prime Ministership as a consequence. At the same time, he listened though to his service chiefs and played for time by appeasing Hitler to enable the UK to undergo it's greatest re-equipment it had ever known. Without the time bought, the UK would have been largely defenceless in the air, there would have been few Spitfires or Hurricanes. The Navy would have been unprepared for war and the army as well. Churchill was the man though, with the spirit and verve to resist Hitler. Chamberlain was yesterday's man.
"Told you,Horace that those RTC types were a bunch of oiks - tradesmen and johnny come latelys the lot of them..."