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)

Dear me. It's not easy to respond rationally to that level of invective, especially when it's left unsigned. This is not an opinion piece, it's supposed to be reference standard and requires citing of sources rather than unqualified opinion. It was Chamberlain who borrowed the money to build the fighter aircraft which defended Britain in 1940. This took years of planning and they did not magically appear at the stroke of Beaverbrook's pen or Churchill's word. The same could be said for the pilots and all the support services. All this went in defiance of the conventional view of the time that the bomber would always get through. He also ensured that radar network received the priority it needed and the civil defence services were upgraded to a level that was more able to cope with the Blitz when it came.

And who declared war on September 3, 1939?

Doesn't sound like an idiot to me. Flanker235 (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For me instead, it sounds like more than an idiot, a man who think he can buy a peace for the price of death of milions of people of other countries and existance of other countries, not even being asked if they want to pay this price. --Matrek (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2016 (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)

Not a Best Article-- a Revisionist Apologia

As a professor I'm grimly aware that students turn to Wikipedia first, for elucidation. No student, hearing a politician contemptuously called a "Chamberlain" whose policies will lead to "another Munich" could turn here and discover the source of that contempt. It may not be gentlemanly of me to say it, but the jury is not out on Neville Chamberlain and Munich. You'd never know it from this article. If history is written by the winners, is Wikipedia written by the losers? Historians adopting a man as their own tend to write apologies for him. I've made the error myself. At one point the article makes it seem as if only left-wingers and the self serving Churchill, among historians, hold less than a forgiving view of Chamberlain's foreign policy incompetence, which nearly destroyed the civilized West. It is shocking that nowhere in the article is William Manchester cited. His enormous and justifiably honored biography of Churchill is, necessarily, a study of Chamberlain and Churchill. There is more about Chamberlain in some chapters than about Churchill. Manchester has no stake in Chamberlain, and so presents facts strikingly absent from this article-- for instance, the postwar testimony of the German generals that time after time they had plans in place to remove Hitler as soon as Chamberlain called his bluff. But each time Chamberlain caved in. College students coming here should read such evidence, as well as these scholarly equivocations. As much as any single man, Chamberlain the pacifist raised Hitler's stock in Germany until Hitler, through Chamberlain's unwitting help, brought about World War II. That is not my judgement. It is the general one, among historians left and right. Students have to hear it. Profhum (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How is Manchester's biography superior to those who in the 21st century (cited in article) have evaluated Chamberlain's life and reputation? Or do you think they did not read Manchester? This article is written in a very neutral tone, intentionally dispassionate. Do you have sources which say that Chamberlain's reputation is settled, that there is no dispute nor has been since Manchester? I would agree that in the public arena, Chamberlain stock remains very low and there is no likelihood of revival. That's stated. If you have sources that you'd like us to consider, feel free. I expect with the 75th anniversary of his greasy pole ascent in May and with the 75th anniversary of Munich next year, there will be some revival of interest in Chamberlain. The Legacy section, really, is a recapitulation of 70 years of "what he should have done instead of Munich", which has always been the hard part of Chamberlain discussions. I am happy to discuss specific revisions (I wrote most of the article and its companion, Rise of Neville Chamberlain, but we're not going to alter the neutral tone to throw rhetorical brickbats at people.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered reply. You raise, at the end, the important philosophic topic: "neutrality." You write, "this article is written in a very neutral tone, intentionally dispassionate." Wouldn't you agree that at some point historical neutrality becomes moral neutrality-- that is, amorality? Should we refuse to judge whether the Holocaust, just to take an obvious case, was right or wrong? I would not feel that a history which was neutral about the Nazi side of the Holocaust, or the Stalinist side of the gulags, or the Maoist side of the Cultural Revolution was an adequate one. It would lack a moral compass. If you are with Foucault and the later nihilists, you merely shrug and say "oh, whose morality? What morality?" But I very much doubt, from your writing, that's you. I appeal to you as a kindred spirit on this matter. You, perhaps, are trying to give Chamberlain his day in court, and that's certainly a moral act. But at the end, you still have to render the sentence. As the airplane flew into the volcano, who was in the pilot seat? Who had ignored every warning? Who, in fact, accepted his own responsibility for the disaster? There are times when it is inappropriate to forgive, because students believe in Wikipedia, and if they don't learn from history they will repeat it. But I should be asking you if you don't agree that moral neutrality is nothing to be desired, and if historical neutrality to a failure of leadership which led to a World War isn't akin to it? Sincerely, Profhum (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Chamberlain was not Hitler. Chamberlain was not Stalin. When I have had the opportunity to mention their crimes, as in Nikita Khrushchev, I have not hesitated to call a spade a spade. What those men did was unquestionably evil. Chamberlain, not so. He may have been misguided. He may have been wrong. But reflexive condemnation of Munich carries with it the question of what he should have done instead. The alternative action, to signing at Munich, is what has given historians fits over the last seventy years. Being neutral about Chamberlain is not being neutral about Hitler.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Profhum sums up my sentiments better than I could. I am not a scholar, and found the entire article very interesting, and while reading it I had the distinct feeling that something is missing. I think the article does a very good job of telling "the rest of the story", but does not actually tell "the story" which is that Chamberlain had a historical opportunity to thwart Hitler and his psychotic ambitions and because of his failure a world-wide catastrophe happened. This is the lesson that humanity chooses to believe in, and there is no scholar, no historian that is going to stand against that pressure, nor should they as that lesson should be serving us in current situations such as Syria. I would not subtract anything from this article, however I think there needs to be the additional perspective of the consequences of appeasement included as it's primary focus. Everything else is a very interesting afterthought.173.175.96.105 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The article leaves out the cause of his death as well as the fact he allowed Supermarine to behave extremely unprofessionally leading to his own inability to threaten Hitler, providing a factor for the war. The other appalling omission is that his appeasement made Britain a co-conspirator in the treatment of German Jews and the deaths of Ethiopians. Also, after years of development, RDF was still unknown to the French(?) although they had told Britain about Enigma. However that is a more suitable subject for an article on tactics or the lack of them in WW2

Weatherlawyer (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask you the same question I asked Profhum. If not what he did, what should Chamberlain have done at Munich?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

the problem is that people somehow assume that at Munich "Chamberlain had a historical opportunity to thwart Hitler". Opportunity for a war in 1938--but what if Britain lost the "Battle of Britain" in 1938 and had to surrender? That is what worried the British military, for they pleaded for time to rearm so as to catch up with Germany. Fact is we are 100% sure that Britain won the war, --but what is the % assurance that Plan B would have won the war? Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Profhum speaks about morality and the other poster alludes to it by bringing up Syria. But in a situation of moral vs. immoral, it isn't good enough to be moral. One must be moral and victorious. And as you say, we are certain that Britain, with its allies, was victorious. Suggesting an alternative course of action, with the benefit of hindsight, and can be valuable, but it would be arrogant to believe that we could be certain of any outcome. And it would be counterproductive to confuse strategy and effectiveness with moral right and wrong. 142.163.153.192 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Chamberlain acquired for Britain a year's breathing space to rearm for war is a myth created by later Chamberlain apologists. Chamberlain pursued appeasement because he viewed it as the way forward for settling Germany's grievances. Chamberlain wanted Munich to be the first of many negotiated settlements to erase grievances in Europe. Chamberlain genuinely believed he had secured peace at Munich. Also, on the subject of military prospects for Britain in 1938, it is not at all clear that they were better a year later. The Czech army was not insignificant and there was a plot within Germany to topple Hitler had the Entente powers declared war on Germany in 1938 (if it could of succeeded we'll never know).--Britannicus (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

1.It's not quite a "myth", it's just not the whole story. There was, obviously enough, a programme going on of building up the RAF with the latest fighter planes whose names are too famous to need quoting here, and in the event this proved just enough to win the Battle of Britain. The rearmament programme tends, even now, to be under-appreciated because Churchill wrote the first draft of history of the 1930s and was guilty of quite a few misrepresentations. Nobody foresaw the collapse of France, an event which owed as much to poor French deployment and generalship as to German air superiority (on land the forces were about equal). "Gaining time for inevitable war" was, however, not Chamberlain's primary motive - that is a distortion put about by people like Rab Butler after the war.

2.I dropped by here out of interest to see whether NC attracts the same sort of comments as Lord Halifax, or Oliver Cromwell - people who have come to be demonised in popular mythology and whose wiki talk pages attract occasional accusations of bias. One does have to be a bit careful of drawing simplistic "lessons" from the recent past, as politicians of the 1950s and 1960s used to do about Munich. Syria now seems to have faded from the headlines a little but one only has to look at the ongoing crisis in Russia to see some analogies - an autocrat who is making noises in an area which is (arguably) his own sphere of influence, reclaiming one area (the Crimea) with a good deal of popular support, and muscling in on another (the Ukraine) where western powers have (arguably) been trying to extend their own influence onto his front porch. Does that mean that Western governments should be threatening Putin with war or intriguing with Russian generals for his overthrow? It is never simple or obvious how these things should be handled.

3.As for the very first comment in this thread, the late William Manchester was an entertaining read but hardly the most serious of historians.

4.The tone of the article seems fine to me.Paulturtle (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with the revisionists but would add a bit about motivation. Chamberlain I agree was not primarily motivated to postpone war to allow defences to build up (warplanes and esp radar). However the military was motivated in that way. They felt Germany was ahead but that they could catch up in terms of defence in a year or two (and they were correct). The military had many powerful friends, all centered in the Conservative Party. That was a major component, i believe, for NC's base of support for appeasement. Both NC The Treasury & the Foreign Office all by 1938 emphasized the need to build up the air defence system (though the motivation may partly have been to avoid the cost of an infantry buildup). see Scott Newton (1996). Profits of Peace: The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement: The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement. Clarendon Press. pp. 67–69. and Adams (1993). British Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of Appeasement, 1935-39. Stanford UP. p. 130. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

From memory, it was taken for granted that the scale of Britain's infantry deployment to France would not be on the scale of 1916-18 (in fact, the government had been planning to scale back Britain's European deployment from the end of 1917 after Third Ypres, but the German Spring Offensives had put paid to that). So an emphasis on the RAF instead seems perfectly plausible.

The article seems to cover Chamberlain's subsequent reputation reasonably well: the way he came to be attacked by the Left (sometimes with utter hypocrisy, by people who would have opposed any kind of hardline policy until it was too late, but that's politics for you) and by Churchill, and how few postwar Tories were in any hurry to say nice things about him (or Baldwin).

What I think is missing from the article, unless I've missed it, is a paragraph or two about relations with the USA (didn't he once say that you "cannot count on the Americans for anything besides words"?) and the USSR (prior to the half-hearted talks in summer 1939, by which time Hitler and Stalin were allies anyway). A lot of the "there was no alternative" arguments boil down to whether or not there is any mileage in Churchill's claims that he would have cobbled together a Grand Alliance to contain Hitler, just as his ancestor Marlborough had helped to keep the alliance against Louis XIV going. My feeling FWIW, whatever R.A.C. Parker may think, is that there probably wasn't much, and that anyway it's a bit of red herring as the French Army seemed much stronger than it subsequently turned out to be (ditto the Poles, actually), whereas the opposite was true of the Soviets (just after the purges!). As far as the details of British diplomacy with those powers goes, I don't have access to the relevant books at the moment, so can't add myself.Paulturtle (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Planning to teach the London course again, returning to my 2012 post in 2016, I read these learned and very temperate discussions. I suddenly realized, with pleasure, that collectively we have provided my students with what I originally asked for. I had started by saying, "As a professor I'm grimly aware that students turn to Wikipedia first, for elucidation. No student, hearing a politician contemptuously called a "Chamberlain" whose policies will lead to "another Munich" could turn here and discover the source of that contempt." That gap in the original article has been filled. Really, that's all we can or should do on Wikipedia, provide the readers with enough information to let them decide on their own. Thanks to all. Best, Profhum (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Chamberlain and 1936 Abdication Crisis

I have added in section about his period as Chancellor his known part in the Abdication Crisis as given in Martin Gilbert's book, "Winston Churchill - The Wilderness Years" (1981) (which placed him in contrasting context with Churchill's pro-Edward position). While Gilbert gives 6 December 1936 as the date for the "hurting the Christmas trade" statement, he does not make clear the context it was made (Cabinet meeting? It was on a Sunday.) Those who have access to Chamberlain biographies are welcome to check this out - I recall one biography I read (but alas not its author and exact title) seemed to cast doubt on Chamberlain as the source of the statement.Cloptonson (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into what my sources say on the subject. I'll probably tone it down a bit. Chamberlain of course agreed. It was that or resign within grasping range of the top of the pole. Chamberlain's support was certainly important to Baldwin, but really, the Abdication Crisis affected Churchill far more than Chamberlain.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - did not expect such a prompt response!Cloptonson (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to look for my Chamberlain books.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Honours

Noticing no date was given to his becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society, I have added a section on honours he received - mostly degrees and freedoms - which may be of interest given his mixed reputation and that he refused knighthood, cited to Kelly's Handbook and the Dictionary of National Biography (1931-1940). Surprising may be that he was made in 1939 an honorary Air Commodore in the Auxiliary Air Force! I have left the awards undated where I found no date given in my sources.Cloptonson (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems fine. I have not had time to locate my copy of Self and answer your earlier question. The article mentions he declined a knighthood, by the way, though in case someone is coming straight to the honours section, it wouldn't hurt to have it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Guilty Men" - Publisher

At present the article states "In July 1940, a polemic entitled Guilty Men was released by "Cato"—a pseudonym for three journalists (including future Labour leader Michael Foot) from the Beaverbrook publishing stable.[201]"

The book was published by Victor Gollancz, Ltd., which was not in any sense part of the "Beaverbrook publishing stable". It's a minor point, but on this the source is quite simply wrong or has been misread. I have a copy of 1st ed. of the book in front of me - and I hope this information won't be dismissed as "original research".

FWIW, the Wikipedia article on the book claims that the three authors used a pseudonym because "their employer, Lord Beaverbrook, was active in the Conservative Party and banned his journalists from writing for other publications". That seems to be the "Beaverbrook connection", such as it is. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_Men ). Norvo (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The authors worked for Beaverbrook. It is not implying that Beaverbrook published it, or connived at it. I don't have the source in front of me right now, but I don't see how what we have is wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. Emphasizing the Beaverbrook connection will trip up half our readers--he had zero connection with it. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing that, Rjensen. The reference to Beaverbrook was ambiguous and irrelevant. Norvo (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chamberlain's shifts. Place within his party

"On 15 March, Germany invaded the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, including Prague" That was a key shift, (because those territories were not in any sense ethnically or historically German unlike previous ones Hitler had acquired) and Chamberlain immediately started making veiled threats of war, as the article says. So I think it should get a subsection. It was a watershed.

Similarly there was a huge shift in attitude when the Nazi Soviet pact was announced. "Only after the German soviet nonagression pact of August 21 did Halifax implement the unilateral guarantee to Poland with aa formal mutual assistance Pact" Source: The Anglo American Establishment by Carroll Quigley page 300. As Quigley says, Chamberlain had no problem with Germany fighting the USSR, in fact he and Halifax tried to facilitate it.

Chamberlain was very much a political moderate. The Conservatives who wanted to confront Germany in the 30's on were on the far right of the party and the same ones who wanted to keep India irrespective of the what Indians thought, like George Lloyd, 1st Baron Lloyd. Churchill too.Overagainst (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Conscription was imposed in Britain on 27 April April 1939. As for the Tory party, they were against challenges to British (sic) national interests so tried to normalise the German regime, arm to reinforce appeasement with the means to use force and to keep the USSR isolated. Anglo-French diplomacy 1933-1939 was a dance around Scylla and Charybdis. Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a basic outline of Chamberlain's and others' attitude to Hitler and the shift when Hitler grabbed the aforemention non-German territory would help the article

The moderate progressive establishment figures like (admirer of Gandhi ) Philip Kerr, 11th Marquess of Lothian were not too worried because with Austria Hitler seemed to be gathering in Germans into a German state. Hence Lothian's remark that Hitler was Just marching into his own back yard could be used in the article.

Munich: See here. On 15 Sept Chamberlain agreed to Germany anexing those provinces that voted for it in a plebicite in the Sudetenland, which given that in was basically German meant he accepted Germany was going to get it in a few months time. Then on 22 Sept Hitler demanded immediate German occupation of the Sudetenland without a plebicite. Chamberlain had already conceded that Germany was going to get the Sudetenland in half a year. So at Munich Chamberlain's big concession was on on the TIMING. The timing of when Germany got Sudetenland. Which Chamberlain had had already, in effect agreed to when he agreed to the plebicite. I think that shows that Chamberlain was angry Germany was issuing dictats, but what they were demanding was considered German, and then getting it not unacceptable, if done through negotioation.Overagainst (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There could be something about Chamberlain's aid to Finland a country the USSR was at war with, and his plans to (along with the French) to unofficially go to war with the USSR see Quigley and here.

Overagainst (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pact with Poland

Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the article should mention many historians agree that Chamberlain's pact with Poland was a terrible mistake. It ensured the Soviet Union would invade Poland, as Stalin knew full well that the UK and France would not be able to declare war against him (since they would have already declared war on Germany). Had people known the truth about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact then the UK and France would never have started World War II. Once Germany had been defeated Stalin knew the Western powers would not be able to go to war again to liberate eastern Europe from his forces. (XavierKnightley (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)) What do they say he should have done?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Typos

Chamberlain's address on the outbreak of war: "no such undertaken ..." ? Surely "undertaking" ? 87.114.150.35 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. This article is getting a lot of hits, which I trace to the current throwing around of comparisons between the Ukraine situation and the 1930s, which to my mind make little sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't fix it myself since I don't have a good reference source to check with.46.208.102.174 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well here's a good one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

War Cabinet link

Hi. In the Phoney War section the War Cabinet link leads to War_Cabinet#Second_World_War, which contains two subsections for Chamberlain's and Churchil's war cabinets. Since the article is about Neville Chamberlain, shouldn't the War Cabinet link point specifically to War_Cabinet#Chamberlain_War_Cabinet? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done that, good suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I can see no coverage of his failure to support the democratically elected Spanish government against the fascist coup of Franco. This "neutral" stance contributed in no small way, along with appeasement, to encouraging fascist aggression which precipitated WW2. I am no historian so i suggest someone with expertise write a para on this important subject.Richwil (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that more a question of him continuing Baldwin's policy? And you say failure--did he have a duty to support the Republican faction?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Before C. took office all the powers had agreed on containing the Civil War so it would not become a world war--they all remembered July 1914. Chamberlain did negotiate the withdrawal of (some) Italisn forces. Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did he declare war on Germany?

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Poland had nothing to do with the British Empire. (DieterAnders (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)) DieterAnders, of course it didn't, but GB had treaty obligations to Poland (inc. the Munich Agreement, which put a limit on Nazi ambitions).Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) The article needs more information on why Chamberlain thought Germany was a threat to the UK and why Britain was obliged to declare war instead of other countries. (DieterAnders (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC))

War and Shame

"Churchill told the Commons, "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."" This quote should be sourced to Hansard. I can't find it there, and suspect it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.128.4 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This came up on Winston Churchill's biog last winter, and I tracked it down. My comments, retrieved from the archive of that article:

"It's a misquote of a comment he made in some private letters in the run-up to Munich to Lloyd George and Lord Moyne. Churchill's public comments - about the leaders of his own party - were a lot more circumspect until at least the end of 1938, and I dare say until Hitler marched into Prague, at which point official policy changed anyway. Publicly, he talked about whether or not time would prove Mr Chamberlain's policy to been right. He was a politician, not a character in an epic myth, and hedged his bets like all politicians.Paulturtle (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)"

It's already mentioned in the biogs of Churchill and Lord Moyne, and as it was a comment in a private letter I don't really see any pressing need for it to go here as well - it would mean clogging up the bibliography with yet another book just for one sentence.Paulturtle (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Poland

The article should mention that Chamberlain's pact with Poland was a mistake, as it ensured the country would be invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin knew France and the British Empire would only declare war on Germany, leaving him free to invade Poland and the Baltic States. (213.122.144.219 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC))