Rehabilitate Neville Chamberlain

[Gingerdave]

Neville Chamberlain has gone down in history as the man who sat back and allowed Germany to rearm while Britain did nothing, the defining image is that of the piece of paper that guaranteed 'peace in our time.'

This lack of preparation leads directly to Britain's losses in the first two years of the war.

However, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain increased defence spending, paying for the development and initial order of Spitfires, Hurricanes, the King George V battleships and Illustrious-class carriers. As PM, he continued to rearm the UK, doubling the size of the Territorial Army and setting up the Chain Home radar system.

Handing the Sudetenland to Germany was a dreadful mistake, and if the war had started then it seems that Germany wouldn't have lasted very long. The Wehrmacht had managed to convince Britain and France that it was much stronger than it actually was - too strong to fight for now.

"In the absence of any powerful ally, and until our armaments are completed, we must adjust our foreign policy to our circumstances, and even bear with patience and good humour actions which we should like to treat in a very different fashion."

So how do we change the popular perception of Chamberlain to someone who wanted peace, but rearmed Britain in time for the war?

Guilty Men has to go, for a start.

 

[overoceans]

Not much to say about this, except to recollect that in the 1980s, whenever you would see an anti-nuke protest somewhere, with purple-haired punk rockers and bearded old hippies smoking dope and singing Give Peace A Chance, some right-winger would always say "Those guys are just like Neville Chamberlain."

 

[Mikestone8]

So how do we change the popular perception of Chamberlain to someone who wanted peace, but rearmed Britain in time for the war?

Avoid the defeat in Norway and have him carry on until his death in November.

That way the Battle of Britain is fought on his watch, and he is remebered as the man who saw us through the most critical part of the war.

 

[Amadeus]

Neville Chamberlain has gone down in history as the man who sat back and allowed Germany to rearm while Britain did nothing, the defining image is that of the piece of paper that guaranteed 'peace in our time.'

This lack of preparation leads directly to Britain's losses in the first two years of the war.

However, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chamberlain increased defence spending, paying for the development and initial order of Spitfires, Hurricanes, the King George V battleships and Illustrious-class carriers. As PM, he continued to rearm the UK, doubling the size of the Territorial Army and setting up the Chain Home radar system.

Handing the Sudetenland to Germany was a dreadful mistake, and if the war had started then it seems that Germany wouldn't have lasted very long. The Wehrmacht had managed to convince Britain and France that it was much stronger than it actually was - too strong to fight for now.



So how do we change the popular perception of Chamberlain to someone who wanted peace, but rearmed Britain in time for the war?

Guilty Men has to go, for a start.

The problem with this is that Chamberlain doesn't have much of a legacy as PM except for what is arguably the worst foreign policy mistake in human history, then being forced out of office so that Churchill could take over. And while Chamberlain did rearm Britain, he did so quite late in the day.

Perhaps if Chamberlain had stood his ground over Czechoslovakia and led Britain during what would likely have been a short-lived war with Germany in 1938, he'd have gone down in history as a great leader.

 

[Simon]

So how do we change the popular perception of Chamberlain to someone who wanted peace, but rearmed Britain in time for the war?

Don't have him physically wave the agreement about so much or lean out the window at Downing Street, both actions which were fairly out of character for him. Less perceived triumphalism means he has shorter to fall when the war begins and thus recover from.

Guilty Men has to go, for a start.

If not Guilty Men I think something similar was bound to be written, you would be better off getting an answering publication like The Left Was Never Right released much more quickly – as in months – to stop it from setting the tone for most of the war.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I have always liked Churchill's eulogy in the House of Commons when Chamberlain died:
"It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked evil man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned."

 

[marathag]

Have Neville pull out a Webley and shoot the paperhanger in the head at Munich.
'Now there will be Peace, with your Soul burning in Hell'
Yeah, it's out of character, but....

 

[ShortsBelfast]

The problem with this is that Chamberlain doesn't have much of a legacy as PM except for what is arguably the worst foreign policy mistake in human history, then being forced out of office so that Churchill could take over. And while Chamberlain did rearm Britain, he did so quite late in the day.

Perhaps if Chamberlain had stood his ground over Czechoslovakia and led Britain during what would likely have been a short-lived war with Germany in 1938, he'd have gone down in history as a great leader.

True originator of what would become the NHS (though he is rarely given credit for it) and probably just as well that the UK didn't rearm earlier. A massive force of Gloster Gladiators might not have guaranteed a win in the Battle of Britain for instance nor would a large fleet of Bristol Blenheims have been a great help

 

[tomo pauk]

A massive force of Gloster Gladiators might not have guaranteed a win in the Battle of Britain for instance nor would a large fleet of Bristol Blenheims have been a great help

From where the Germans will fight the BoB in 1938, and with what aircraft?

 

[marktaha]

Not much to say about this, except to recollect that in the 1980s, whenever you would see an anti-nuke protest somewhere, with purple-haired punk rockers and bearded old hippies smoking dope and singing Give Peace A Chance, some right-winger would always say "Those guys are just like Neville Chamberlain."

Mental vision of Neville C with purple hair and smoking dope!

 

[sonofpegasus]

To a large extent to anyone who has studied the history of the time, Churchill's eulogy for Chamberlin is the start of his rehabilitation. History has not looked kindly on Chamberlin as scapegoats are always easier to swallow rather than laying the blame on the entire political apparatus and voting population.

 

[Garrison]

So how do we change the popular perception of Chamberlain to someone who wanted peace, but rearmed Britain in time for the war?

Guilty Men has to go, for a start.

Except he didn't rearm Britain in time for the war, He boosted the RAF, largely under pressure from others, but the army remained woefully unprepared and such efforts as were made to improve it weren't put into place until after the Germans marched into Prague. Doubling the size of the Territorial Army sounds great, except there was nothing to arm them with and this decision simply led to further strains on the Army's limited stocks. And of course the Territorials were primarily intended for home defence, even in the Spring of 1939 Chamberlain was still doing nothing to prepare for the prospect of having to intervene militarily on the continent.

 

[Mikestone8]

Perhaps if Chamberlain had stood his ground over Czechoslovakia and led Britain during what would likely have been a short-lived war with Germany in 1938, he'd have gone down in history as a great leader.

Not for long.

If Germany collapse in 1938, Stalin likely moves in to fill the vacuum, so that GB and France are left facing the SU with little prospect of assistance from an isolationist US. His decision for war would be seeen in hindsight as a disatrous error - much as his appeasement policy is seen OYL.

 

[Garrison]

Not for long.

If Germany collapse in 1938, Stalin likely moves in to fill the vacuum, so that GB and France are left facing the SU with little prospect of assistance from an isolationist US. His decision for war would be seeen in hindsight as a disatrous error - much as his appeasement policy is seen OYL.

Stalin is not that reckless and the Red Army is no state to mount such actions in 1938.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

His attitude in not wanting war, was in the late 30s aligned with everyone else's* desires in not wanting war in Europe and I cannot quite bring myself to condemn him for the decisions he made 'at the time'

Much is made of his (and everyone else's) foolish 'appeasement' of Hitler, but appeasement is something that has been done throughout History at every level of human interaction, we do it most of the time.

It was only foolish in hindsight

*Apart from the Madman and his pack of villains in Berlin

 

[Comte de Geneve]

I agree with Cryhavoc. The actions taken at Munich were popular with the bulk of the British and French populations. In hindsight we can harshly criticize 'appeasement', but I believe that from the standpoint of the time and given the realities on the ground (and in the air) Chamberlain's actions are both defensible and understandable. The rest of the world had not come to understand the total immorality of Herr Hitler by that time. Many in the west considered Hitler's actions in the Rhineland and Austria to be understandable. Future circumstances placed Chamberlain in an extremely negative light, but in September 1938 no one could really foresee the future. It is unfortunate for his historical image that Chamberlain's upper class 'twit' (apologies to M Python) appearance and use of accessories (ie. that brolly) poisons our current image of him, as does the comparison of his image to that of the supreme English bulldog, Winnie. But given the 'known knowns' of the time and place Chamberlain did the right thing. It was the '(probably) known unknowns' that did him in.

 

[Mikestone8]

Stalin is not that reckless and the Red Army is no state to mount such actions in 1938.

Why not? If Germay is ollapsing it could be done, and if the SU was ostensibly an "ally" against Hitler then it might be politically difficult to go from a German war straight on to a Rssian one. They could get away with collaring the eastern half of Germany, haavig presumably rolled through Poland n the way.

 

[ArtosStark]

Why not? If Germay is ollapsing it could be done, and if the SU was ostensibly an "ally" against Hitler then it might be politically difficult to go from a German war straight on to a Rssian one. They could get away with collaring the eastern half of Germany, haavig presumably rolled through Poland n the way.

Possibly, but that assumes a few things. Germany being beaten by Britain and France over Czechoslovakia may or may not mean the Soviets are involved, and if they are it may or may not give Stalin the impetus to invade Poland to get there. It also assumes that it is a long enough war that the Soviets have time to build up their military in Poland to the extent they feel confident trying to seize parts of Germany. It also assumes Germany is both collapsing and unoccupied by the Western powers.

It’s possible, but not the only, or even most, probable outcome.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

Remember the purges! And in no case is Germany collapsing. The alternative is a coup by the Heer resulting in a monarchial restoration. This is not a collapse.

 

[Garrison]

Why not? If Germay is ollapsing it could be done, and if the SU was ostensibly an "ally" against Hitler then it might be politically difficult to go from a German war straight on to a Rssian one. They could get away with collaring the eastern half of Germany, haavig presumably rolled through Poland n the way.

The Red Army of 1938 bears no comparison to that of 1945. Stalin had no grand plans for the conquest of Europe and he had no intention of facing off against the French and the British given the state of the Red Army in 1938. Stalin's focus was on internal development in this period and the purging of the 'unreliable' elements in the armed forces. Added to which you are assuming it will lead to war if the Munich Agreement doesn't happen, regime change in Germany is just as likely. .