"I always wondered if WW2 would have happened if the Allies didn't stick their beaks into Europe's affairs !"

Yeah, what were France, Britain and Poland doing sticking the noses into European affairs!!

As to Churchill, remember that he was appointed following the German invasion of the Low Countries and the subsequent or simultaneous advance through the Ardennes. It had already been decided that Chamberlain couldn't continue as PM but it was no certainty that Churchill would be his successor. It was the events of 10 May that changed all that and subsequently saved the Europe from Nazi domination.

As to Chamberlain and Munich, I urge you to read Churchill's speech to the Commons following Chamberlain's death. Its one of the great speeches of the 20th century and points out that Chamberlain wasn't wrong to make the Munich agreement but was deceived by unimagined evil that was Nazi Germany.

Following the German annexation of the rump Czechoslovakia, even Chamberlain realised that appeasement was no longer feasible, so there was no chance of him continuing that policy into late 1939.

The problem was that Hitler had come to believe by then that the allies would not fight under any circumstances. He went into Poland believing that the Britain/France would kick up a stink but not lift a finger. There is a famous scene between Hitler and Ribbentrop on 3 September when the declaration of war happened, where Hitler looks to Ribbentrop and asks "What do we do now?" He simply wasn't expecting that the allies would move to support Poland and had no plans about what to do when they did.

Indyvidual
WW2 began when Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. But Britain was not at war with Germany at this point. It had entered a mutual self-defence pact with Poland earlier that year. When Germany invaded Poland, Britain issued an ultimatum that unless Germany withdrew from Poland, Britain would be at war with Germany. When Germany failed to respond by the deadline of 11am on 3 September, Britain declared war on Germany.

Canem Malem
For many years the mainstream historical view was that Chamberlain made a grave error in his policy of appeasement and signing the Munich Agreement because it turned a blind eye to German aggression and led Hitler to think that Britain and France would not fight against further territorial expansion. More recently, as I noted above, there have been revisionists who question this line. There are as I understand it three main revisionist arguments (not necessarily incompatible):

• It was likely Hitler would continue his aggression, but appeasement was worth a try because if Hitler kept his word a major war would be averted.
• Chamberlain knew that war was inevitable, but Britain was hopelessly unprepared, and he hoped to buy time to build up Britain’s military capabilities.
• Chamberlain was not such a bad war leader, and many of the things credited to Churchill, such as the RAF’s performance during the Battle of Britain, were in fact due to Chamberlain’s planning and preparation.

Even if any or all of these are true, I don’t think Chamberlain would have been as effective a war leader as Churchill, whose personality was as important as his policies in unifying and leading Britain at an incredibly difficult time.

The “person or persons” who replaced Chamberlain were Chamberlain himself and the British Parliament, as the website you link to makes clear. There may be some longer-term trends in political thought and practice that influenced how the actors behaved, but to blame Chamberlain’s replacement by Churchill in 1940 on Disraeli (who died in 1881) seems rather a long bow.

"• It was likely Hitler would continue his aggression, but appeasement was worth a try because if Hitler kept his word a major war would be averted."

While many, including Churchill, thought that Hitler would continue his expansionism, that was not the majority view. Remember that, up to that time, Hitler had done nothing more than seek to reunite Germans with the motherland. The prevailing view at the time was that Germany had been no more responsible for WW1 than any other power and had therefore been unfairly treated by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler seeking to undo that was considered reasonable. It was only after German took the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 that people came to the view that his expansionism knew no bounds and had to be opposed.

"• Chamberlain knew that war was inevitable, but Britain was hopelessly unprepared, and he hoped to buy time to build up Britain’s military capabilities."

Nup. Right up to March 1939, Chamberlain thought he'd save Europe from war. While some rearmament was taking place, that didn't really kick in until mid 1939. While it was true that Britain was ill-prepared for war in September 1938, that was also true of Germany. Indeed German generals had already agreed among themselves that, if Britain/France decided to fight over Czechoslovakia, they'd over-throw the Nazis because they knew they had no chance of victory.

"• Chamberlain was not such a bad war leader, and many of the things credited to Churchill, such as the RAF’s performance during the Battle of Britain, were in fact due to Chamberlain’s planning and preparation."

Again, very little rearmament was done until mid-1939. Britain wasn't really in very much better shape in 1940 than they'd been in 1938. Indeed, following the defeat of France, there was a strong view among the British leadership that they should seek peace terms. It was Churchill's force of character that caused them to remain in the fight.

Mhaze

I actually agree with you. I was summarising some of the arguments I have heard trying to paint Chamberlain in a favourable light, rather that endorsing them. My main point is that, even if Chamberlain’s actions were reasonable or justified, Churchill was a much better war leader.

Thanks for your points mhaze.

According to the Wikipedia Article - Chamberlain, against his better judgement, gave a speech on the Munich Agreement that echoed Disraeli. History proves that his instinctive ambivalence was correct.

Churchill seems to play to the crowd a lot more than Chamberlain, but that doesn't mean that he cared less.

I was a bit suspect at Churchill courting heir apparent Eden, seemingly he was forming a coalition against Chamberlain.

But I like Churchill in his own way.

Chamberlain has a string of accomplishments, workplace safety, coal mines, one week paid holidays- that still hold today and he was a conservative (I couldn't work out on my brief check if he was a wet or a dry but suspect that he was less liberal than Churchill).

Chamberlain started building bombers and upgrading the radar network a year before September 1939.

Of course Marxist's and others hate anybody that don't instinctively run tackle Hitler, because he is their arch enemy, in spite of being allies.

11am on 3 September, Britain declared war on Germany.
Rhian,
That was the exact start of WW2. Luckily, we now have several conservative leaders who resist such provocation !