Talk:Neville Chamberlain

Neville Chamberlain and the Lusitania

On file KV 6/47 at The National Archives is a manuscript letter by Neville Chamberlain stating that he had received information from "a reliable source" that there was a plan to blow up the Lusitania. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have a scan of it? At the time, he would have been a Birmingham councillor. A bit odd, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to hand - but, from TNA's catalogue entry 'a letter from Neville Chamberlain dated 30 March 1915 concerning a plot to blow up the Lusitania at Liverpool.'

There is a lot of 'odd history' around - George Everest's nephew-in-law was a mathematician and his great-nephew-in-law was a Polish revolutionary. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds interesting and I'd like to see it. At that time, though, he was a Birmingham City Councillor, so I wonder what we could do with it. His company, Hoskins, made ship berths and may well have equipped the Lusitania, accounting for his interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Summarising the pages in the file (a collection of 'miscellaneous documents of historical interest') - a one-page letter, written from Dublin Castle; and a two page memo - an American friend had received the information from a German friend who had acquired the information: a bomb on a timer switch would be brought in as luggage, and be set to explode after all the passengers had left the ship (as it was not desired to antagonise the Americans): mention is also made that there would be a switch from Germans using fake passports to come to the UK to Germans naturalised in America posing as tourists (for purposes of spying etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting, and I'd love to see them (can you scan and upload them?). I don't know, since they are primary documents, if we can use them without a secondary source having discussed them, but will start trolling my bios of Chamberlain just in case someone mentioned them and I missed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A transcript can be found here [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Put me down as unenthusiatic about photos in which someone other than the person on whom the article is written is excluded. Can't photos be found of the parties that include Neville with Lloyd George; and the other two Chamberlains? To me, without that connection, the photos are off WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we have a very limited source of photographs, as finding some that are free use, not fair use, is difficult indeed. I have searched quite a lot for more photos. If you think you can do better, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2c commentary

Dilks, David (1984), check capitalisation of subtitle "volume 1…" Check that its a subtitle, and not a volume title?

Wheeler-Bennett, John. Munich : … Bad spacing in colon in title

Further Reading and generally, watch for the commas after your titles, some are missing. (Watt, D.C.)

References and Further Reading use different citation styles, please consider.

Further reading has Locations, References doesn't.

Please consider citing this one correctly, "^ Modern History Sourcebook: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939., Fordham University, retrieved 2009-10-22" Try "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in Modern…. Actually, just checked, the title is "Modern History Sourcebook: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939" contained in the work Internet Modern History Sourcebook edited and compiled by Paul Halsall

"Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier," lacks date or publisher, the title is incorrect. See the Google books link

Dawson, Sandra, is grossly miscited. Please include Journal title and DOI (required as its prepress) Twentieth Century British History, doi:10.1093/tcbh/hwm005

yours in esteem, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and well done. I'll work through these in the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On Keyes, my practice is to only give an abbreviated cite when the work is only used in an explanatory note. I'm open to suggestions here, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively easy given it has Author and Title and a link and is only a reference in a note, a throw away line... but... have to over come my background in strict citations :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, no use arguing over it. I probably won't get to address your concerns until tomorrow, but will put a full cite in then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All these things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Current value of Joseph Chamberlain's £50,000 loss

Fiflefoo's rationale: "Nev is a capitalist, he should be indicated against per capita GDP or share of GDP measures as it relates to capital expenditures (percentage of total social output directed towards investment)." Somewhat confusingly put, but I think I can just about work out what it means which is, broadly, that Joseph Chamberlain's loss of £50,000 equates, in proportionate GDP terms, to £29 million now. But of course, in the last hundred years or so the UK's GDP has increased enormously in real terms. It does not mean that individual sums have increased in value in the same proportion.

Imagine that a business with an annual turnover of £1,000 in 1900 invests £10 (1% of turnover) in a machine. Imagine also that the same business, a hundred or so years later, is an industrial conglomerate with a turnover of £1 billion. Would we say that the £10 investment of 1900 had a current equivalent value of £10 million (1% of turnover)? I think not, yet that is the logic of Fiflefoo's argument. I would strongly recommend that you use the Current Year values template which provides realistic updated values. Otherwise I think the figures will be constantly queried and challenged.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the fight, other than owning the venue. Could you notify Fifelfoo of the discussion? And btw, Joe was the capitalist, not Nev.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Current year values in terms of what mate? Consumer spending? Are you seriously arguing that Nev chose between personal consumption versus investment with that £50k? The money was only useful for investment purposes, there is no meaningful capacity to expand personal consumption by that amount, and the goods purchased in such extravagence are entirely removed from CPI consumption bundles because workers don't buy jet boats. As money in capital form, the only correct measure of investable money is proportion of total social value, the best equivalent at measuring worth for this is proportion of GDP in year X and year Y.

Continuing. If in 1900 a £1 investment purchases 1% of a company, and if in 2000 the company is still operating in the same mode, with a net worth of £1000, then the 1% investment is worth £10. Consumer Prices are not the correct indicator for capitalist investment. Measuring Worth goes over this in detail in their section on which measure to use for which purpose. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get some facts straight. First, it was Joseph Chamberlain's money, not Neville's. Secondly, we are talking about a business loss of £50,000, not a choice between investing or consuming this sum. Are you seriously arguing that a business loss of £50,000 in or around 1900 is equivalent to a business loss today of £29 million? So, pro rata, a business loss of £50 in or around 1900 is equivalent to around £29,000 today? That does not make sense. You seem to have misunderstood the example that I set up, but never mind, it wasn't that good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The usual method in these situations is to compare purchasing power (GDP deflator or CPI basket in practice gives a similar ballpark answer) - in extreme cases it is merely an interesting aside that, say, Cornelius Vanderbilt owned far more of the US economy than Bill Gates or Warren Buffett do today. The income on the capital was used to finance consumption - Joe was living off capital for the rest of his life, and there was little inheritance for the sons after the daughters had been provided for, which is why Sir Austen never had much money. So the usual comparison of purchasing power is perfectly appropriate.Paulturtle (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FA!

The first FA on a British prime minister and it's Neville! Churchill missed the bus!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Shouldn't be the article protected or semi-protected for the time being? After all, this old silly bugger is still a natural target for attack.--78.128.177.216 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a strong prejudice against protecting the TFA. I think we shall just have to deal with it unless it becomes constant, in which case a request should be made, perhaps at AN/I or Talk:Main Page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupid Man?

I think out of all the people during the origins of the second world war, that Chamberlain was by far the easily lead idiot who almost 'gave Britain up' and lead them into defeat. I mainly think this because he believed Hitler when they invaded Czechoslovakia, he believed and made many of the British public believe that he was merely; 'walking into his own back garden'.

They later agreed that Hitler could have 2/3rds of Czech' and Hitler stated 'He wouldn't invade any other country for [25 YEARS!]'. Chamberlain was easily lead by this and believed him, after all, all Hitler had done in the past is re-militarize the Rhineland and re-arm against the will of the Treaty Of Versailles. Therefore he must be a man to be trusted!

Come on, you have to agree that all he did is ruin Britain and if he didn't resign, then Britain would have been severally crippled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamy Crackers (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He did not have the benefit of hindsight? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Chamberlain's control of the press

I have to say that I enjoyed reading this article, but I was wondering whether there should be some mention of how Chamberlain controlled the press during his time in office, and how he used personal contacts and political pressure to ensure that very little criticism of his pro-appeasement policies was heard in public. I'm getting this primarily from Lynne Olsen's 'Troublesome Young Men: The Churchill Conspiracy of 1940' which I'm in the middle of reading, but I do remember seeing mention of this subject in other sources. Olsen argues that Chamberlain, through his actions, helped to create a very effective form of political 'spin' decades before it was recognized as being an essential part of politics as it is now. Do the biographies and other sources used to get this to FA mention the subject in any detail? Skinny87 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read that book. Look at the start of the Prime Minister section and there is mention of Chamberlain having the first "spin doctor". Amazed there is no article about Steward.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad! Yes, Steward seemed like an interesting and oily little character. I might see what there is on him and get at least a stub sorted out. Do your sources (if you still have them) mention him in any detail? Skinny87 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have them, but they are scattered. I will look for them and report back. I very much enjoyed doing the Chamberlain articles, there is so much more to the man than Munich.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I would love to get the Norway Debate up to FA, but I don't think my writing standards are up to scratch. However, I might try and gather some sources and work out a draft. Skinny87 (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A difficult assignment indeed. The debate is just a bit of the picture regarding Chamberlain's resignation. Sorry I can't help, but I think I've done my bit in the area and aside from improving images and getting Rise of Neville Chamberlain to TFA in 2012, I think I'm done writing about Chamberlain. I always maintain my FAs though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I'll tootle on by myself and let you know if I ever come up with anything. Skinny87 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Butterflies and Birds

This cited edit was reverted with the summary "remove naturalist comment, it is adequately covered in article and should not be in lede…".

Where is it mentioned? Before adding it, I searched the article for the strings "lepid" (as in "lepidoptera"/"lepidopterist", "butt"("butterfly"), "ornith" ("ornithology"/"ornithologist") and "bird", and found no mention.

I only added it to the lede, because there is no "personal life" or similar section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I should have been more clear. It is in Rise of Neville Chamberlain, also a FA, here, the third paragraph. The article turned out too long and I had to split it to get it by FAC. I hesitate to start a "personal life" section in the main article, simply because the focus is on NC as PM and still we flutter around the 100K mark.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about birds or butterflies in that article. The fact that articles are FAs does not preclude further editing. Key points from subsidiary article should be included in the main article, just as a key points from the main articles are summarised in its lede. This article is "Neville Chamberlain", not "The Prime-Minstership of Neville Chamberlain". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lookinh everything over, I too would suggest leaving out this information; it's in the Rise of Neville Chamberlain article and is too much detail for this article. It's barely a passing mention in the Guardian article as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As I say in the comment to which you reply, there is nothing about birds or butterflies in that article. Why do you insist that there is? The reason that it's only a passing mention in the Guardian article is that that article is primarily about Churchill. That should have no bearing on this discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was a naturalist is in the Rise article; the butterfly interest has primarily to do with his early life. It mentions that he maintained an interest in such things to the heights of his political career. The Guardian says "the eve of war". Don't you see how that contrasts with the specificity of the rest of the article? And I see one factual error already: the talk of Chamberlain collecting butterflies in the Caribbean is a reference to the time he spent in the Bahamas, which is not in the Caribbean. Again, the place for this, if it is to go anywhere, is in the Rise article. I'd really like to see better sourcing, a source without that howling error. BTW, as far as I can determine, he did not go to the Caribbean while in the Bahamas, any time he had time off, he went home to the UK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a minor detail mentioned in passing in an article on Churchill; and although the RoNC article doesn't specifically mention butterflies, it shows that he was a naturalist. Addding the details about the butterfly info is too great a detail for a summary-style article, particularly it isn't a very relevant piece of iinformation; he liked butterflies - great, but so did a lot more people, as that article illustrates, and it isn't like he did much with it. Unlike Churchill, who tried to breed butterflies in Chartwell and had more grandiose designs that were quite an integral part of his personality - ie building his own walls and joining the Bricklaying Union and so forth. Skinny87 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, Chamberlain enjoyed nature in general. Incidentally, the reference in RoNC to him writing letters is a reference to a letter he wrote to the Times while Chancellor, commenting on seeing an unusual bird. I could expand that. I'd have to dig up my sources on Chamberlain, but I could certainly mention that in the RoNC article. The butterfly thing is a youthful interest that sheds next to no light on the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that letter recently - he talks about walking near Parliament during a session break, doesn't he? Skinny87 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ General response, so outdenting.

Being a lepidopterist is more than "enjoying nature in general", or even "liking butterflies". He collected them; which implies study, and bothering to acquire the necessary equipment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but it's sill only a hobby, to be blunt. Perhaps if he had published books or monographs, or been some kind of recognized expert, it might rate a mention. But I think stating that he was a naturalist in general would be enough for what was a relatively minor part of his life. Wehwalt obviously didn't find enough material in the numerous biographies he used to get this to FA to merit mentioning more than it has been, which probably says something. Skinny87 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading the relevant passages in Robert Self's book on Chamberlain, which is probably the best out there (2006) as Self was also the editor for the published volumes of Chamberlain's diaries. He makes it clear that Chamberlain was a well-informed layman. The only mention of lepidopterae is a mention of his empathizing with his son (then aged around 9, I think) in his excitement in seeing an unusual moth, but then quotes from NC's diaries in saying that he no longer had a desire to collect it. Birds, for sure he was interested in, there is that letter to the Times (which is not quoted, but I think he saw it in St. James's Park) and a mention, which I also saw in a Douglas-Home bio (Alec was his PPS) of NC mentioning to Alec seeing another unusual bird, which is probably where the "eve of war" thingy in the Guardian (much too much of a "Nero fiddling while Rome burns" flavour) comes from. I could probably research it further, but it was a hobby, an interest, and he never published anything scholarly that I'm aware of, and I read an awful lot on Chamberlain in preparing these articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Relations with Ireland

I assume that this little gem of an opinion is Self's own? "When war came, de Valera denied Britain access to the Treaty Ports under Irish neutrality, to Britain's considerable disadvantage during the Battle of the Atlantic." Emphasis added. As Captain Roskill, ("official historian" of the naval war) notes in his book Churchill and the Admirals (pp. 122-123), "In fact the fall of France had forced us to bring all our convoys in by the north-western approaches, and possession of the bases in Eire would therefore have made little difference to their defence." Noting the huge size of this article, I thought I'd mention the point here first. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Self states (p. 299) "When the war broke out in September 1939, de Valera immediately upheld Irish neutrality and Britain was denied access to the treaty ports to its very considerable detriment during the Battle of the Atlantic." I am not a naval expert, but if there is to be a change here, I would really like to see something from an authoritative, later secondary source. I am very open to a change, but I am inclined to be cautious.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Roskill was the author of the War at Sea volumes of the United Kingdom Military History Series published under the aegis of the Cabinet Office - about as authoritative as one can get. The context of the section dealing with Ireland was the Admiralty persuading Churchill that an invasion of Eire to gain possession of anchorages was completely unnecessary. Even with his extensive background in research, I sincerely doubt that Self is qualified to make the claim he makes in the sentence you have quoted. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into things too much that happened after Chamberlain's death. Shall I omit the phrase?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's acceptable to you, then please do. Regards, --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I might have felt more strongly about it if Self had offered any sources for his opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

I came to this article in order to find out more about his Nobel Peace Prize nomination, which I found out about on the Nobel Peace Prize article. I think it would be nice to have a bit about this; even though it's maybe just a factoid, it could fit well in the legacy and reputation section. Thanks. Ben ^T/_C 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. If you can source it, it might be worth mentioning in section that deals with Chamberlain's reception on return to Britain. I don't think it would do well in the legacy section. I am uncertain as to whether he was nominated or not. If I recall correctly, there are a large number of people (any national legislator, any full university professor, for example) who can nominate, and I don't believe the Nobel Committee releases nominations, thus the info usually comes from the nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Searching for information on the nomination, I was amused to find that in January, 1939, a member of the Riksdag named Dr. E. G. C. Brandt jokingly nominated Hitler as a candidate for the Peace Prize, with the possibility of Chamberlain receiving a portion of the prize. There's an article on this in The Times from 30 January, 1939. Hopefully it's not the nomination in question! --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Sweden for you! If hope it was "jokingly". But if that is all there is to it, I don't think it is worth including.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Norway actually, and Barry won for doing er..... well what was it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.144.160 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)