Posted by: John D Clare May 5 2003, 10:56 AM

...Neville Chamberlain was a WONDERFUL man. Noble, honest, principled, a seeker after peace; if he had worn a loincloth he would be venerated the world over. On a mildly serious note, it has been interesting to see the effect the Iraq war has had on his reputation. Every other year that I have discussed appeasement with my pupils, I have had to fight like crazy for him. This year, the pupils were 100% behind him - I ended up arguing against him to square the debate. It is too easy from the perspective of 60+ years of hindsight to glibly send off young men to die in a war; Chamberlain was thoroughly modern in his desire that not one young man should die in a war unless it was unavoidably necessary - unless the great principles were involved.

Posted by: John Simkin May 10 2003, 09:37 AM

If you accept that Chamberlain’s main motivation was to obtain a peaceful settlement with Hitler then there is a strong argument that he has been badly treated by historians. However, it is clear that this was not the only factor in his calculations. In the 1930s the Conservative Party was far more concerned with the dangers of communism spreading from the Soviet Union than the threat posed by Nazi Germany. Chamberlain believed (and hoped) that Hitler would head east rather than west. It was speculated that even if Germany was unable to fully occupy the Soviet Union, the resulting war would so severely damage both countries that they would cease to be an immediate threat to Britain.

This is why Churchill was treated as an outcast when he argued, along with the left, that the best way of dealing with Hitler was for Britain and France to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union. Chamberlain rejected this opportunity when it was offered to him by Stalin. When this happened Stalin became convinced that Britain and France were encouraging Hitler to head east. He therefore protected his country by signing the Soviet-Nazi Pact and in doing so destroyed Chamberlain’s foreign policy strategy and made war inevitable.

Despite some of the good things Chamberlain did as mayor of Birmingham, this all pales into insignificance when you consider the responsibility he must share for the Second World War. For example, he might well win the vote for ‘Worst Briton’ if the election was held in the Czech Republic or Slovakia.

It is interesting to note that in May 1940, Chamberlain’s approval rating in public opinion polls ran at an average of 60 per cent in the early part of the war. This reached 70 per cent just before he was ousted in May 1940. Churchill was only able to get rid of him in 1940 by persuading the Conservative Party to accept the need for a national coalition government. Churchill knew that the Labour Party would not accept positions in the coalition government under Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. Although the Labour Party did not like Churchill he was the only member of that Conservative government they were willing to serve under.

Winston Churchill would be another candidate as ‘Worst Briton’. This is because of his disastrous policies during the First World War, his use of poison gas on the Iraqis in 1920, his opinions on democratic rights of Britain and the rest of the British Commonwealth, his attempts to destroy the trade union movement in the 1920s, his role in creating the Cold War after the Second World War and his last period in government 1951-55 (by which time he had the excuse of senility).

However, you cannot deny the role he played in defeating fascism. I am not though of the opinion that he was the only person who could have saved us. It is now clear that he meddled far too much in military strategy and reduced the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Those passionate supporters of Winston Churchill need to explain why Clement Attlee won a landslide victory in 1945. This seems a strange way for the British public to behave if they also thought that he had really won us the Second World War.

Neville Chamberlain http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm 

Winston Churchill http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWchurchill.htm 

Posted by: John D Clare May 11 2003, 11:08 PM

... I just can't stand by and let John Simkin (nice man that he is) say such things about Neville Chamberlain. The points I have always made about Chamberlain are:
1. Chamberlain could not declare war by personal fiat. He was the leader of a democracy, and he OUGHT to obey the will of the people (as even Blair had to go to Parliament over Iraq). And I do not believe that the country would have stomached a declaration of war over Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain, as the leader of a democracy, HAD to wait until it was clear to people that it was 'the great principles that are involved'. It was only after March 1939 that people realised that. Above all, can you imagine the people of Britain putting up with the Blitz during summer 1939 - to save Czechoslovakia???
I tell the pupils a story of my father, who was the organist at his local church. When he went to volunteer, the sergeant asked him how he - a Christian - could volunteer to go and kill other human beings. My father explained that Hitler was evil, and that the Bible told Christians to resist evil. Now the funny side of the story is that when my father got his papers back after the war, he found that the sergeant had written 'religious nutcase' on his application. But the point of the story is that it illustrates how people during the war thought about Hitler - the point is echoed in Chamberlain's speech on the declaration of war ('it is against bad faith etc... and against that I am certain that right will prevail') and many times in Churchill's speeches ('Hitler is a monster of tyranny, inasatiable in his lust...').
Hitler's evil was only PROVEN in March 1939, and if Chamberlain had gone to war in Sept 1938, he would have taken Britain into war without the moral high-ground (as well as without the necessary air defences).
2. People always drag up the 'he was more afraid of Russia than Germany' thing as though it were a point against him! Of course, it's not. The intensity and danger of the Cold War well proves that Chamberlain was absolutely correct to fear Soviet Russia - as Churchill himself realised much later. All that happened to Chamberlain there was that Stalin outbid him in his appeasement. Where Chamberlain's was a hostile appeasement, seeking to restrain by diplomatic means a Hitler of whom he openly disapproved, Stalin's appeasement (which, also, was primarily to buy time) ran to a proactive treaty to dismember Poland.

I think Chamberlain - in the most trying of diplomatic times - held the thin line between pragmatism and principle as well as any other human being could have done.

My pupils had a very interesting debate about this which - if you are at all interested - you can review at http://www.voy.com/121869/3/ 

Posted by: John Simkin May 12 2003, 08:46 AM

I agree that John Simkin is a nice man but John Clare has got everything else wrong.

John falsely suggests that had only two realistic options in 1938 - appeasement or war. As I pointed out there was a third option – a British/French alliance with the Soviet Union.

To suggest that by selecting this option Churchill showed that he did not appreciate the dangers of communism is absurd. Look at Churchill’s history. In 1919 he was the leading advocate of sending British troops to support the White Army in Russia.

In 1920 Churchill made a speech praising the work of the historian Nesta Webster. In the speech Churchill supported Webster’s view that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot to take over the world. (Churchill even went as far to suggest that the Jews were responsible for the French Revolution.) Churchill continued to be a supporter of Webster even after she helped to form the British Fascist Party in 1923.

Churchill’s views on the relative dangers of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin changed during the Spanish Civil War. Churchill’s nephew, Esmond Romilly, covered the war for the News Chronicle. He provided him with first hand accounts of the emerging military threat of Nazi Germany. This did not change Churchill’s view on the wisdom of the government’s non-intervention policy but it did make him think about the possible danger of Germany deciding to head west rather than east after he had removed the democratically elected government of Spain. (It is interesting that conservative historians tend not to mention the Spanish Civil War when dealing with this issue of appeasement).

Churchill was always well informed about what MI5 and MI6 knew about the situation in Germany. Maxwell Knight (head of B5b, a unit that conducted the monitoring of political subversion) had been a close friend of Churchill’s since 1920. Churchill knew the leaders of the German Army were opposed to any invasion of the Soviet Union. They instead preferred a step by step approach to expansion. It was well known that Hitler would have been ousted by the army if Britain and France had taken military action against Germany when it marched into the Rhineland in 1936.

Churchill realised the British government was playing a dangerous game by appeasing Hitler. There was of course another issue that concerned Churchill in the 1930s. He thought he deserved to be prime minister. Unfortunately for Churchill, no one else agreed with him. He was never going to become leader by supporting government policy. To have any chance at all he had to challenge the leadership over a major issue. Even then his chances of persuading the majority of Tories to support him was remote. His only chance was to bring the government down and to form a coalition government. To do that it would have to get the support of the Labour Party. In 1938 supporting a military alliance with the Soviet Union was about the one thing they could agree upon.

It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the reason that Chamberlain appeasement policy was an example of him being “a leader of democracy”. He no doubt took note of public opinion polls but would not have been controlled by them. As recent articles on the subject of war in Iraq have pointed out, wars are rarely popular with the people before they take place. What we do know is that once war starts people rally around the government. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, Chamberlain’s public opinion ratings increased dramatically after war was declared (far higher than Blair has achieved over Iraq). It remained high until he was ousted. He did not lose the support of the people, he lost the support of the House of Commons.

We now know from released MI5 files that Chamberlain knew about the existence of the Right Club. Yet nothing was done about it. Why? Maybe it was because Chamberlain was using this organization of neo-fascist conservatives to negotiate with Hitler (the period is aptly named the Phoney War).

Chamberlain resigned on 10th May, 1940. Ten days later Maxwell Knight (Churchill) ordered the arrest of the key members of the Right Club Spy Ring. Appeasement had finally come to an end.

Nesta Webster  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSwebsterN.htm 

Esmond Romilly  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPromilly.htm

Maxwell Knight http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSknightM.htm 

Rhineland  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERrhineland.htm 

Right Club http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWrightclub.htm

Posted by: John D Clare May 12 2003, 09:51 PM

You don't need to agree with me... perhaps my arguments ARE ridiculous!
I can let Chamberlain defend himself, and you can listen to him at:

http://www.earthstation1.com/WWIIAudio/Chamberlain_on_Czech_Crisis_09.27.38_LL.wav 

I defy you find anything he says that you would not say yourself - war IS a horrible thing, and before we go to war to DO have to make sure that it is the great principles which are involved. (These are just the things that people were saying before the Iraq war - which is why I said that Chamberlain is remarkably modern in his attitudes.)

Of course, you can play the cynic, and claim that it was all just an 'acceptable face of pacificism' front for Chamberlain's real pro-Nazi leanings.
But listen to his voice, and see if you can hear the sincerity.

Posted by: John Simkin May 13 2003, 06:09 AM

I don’t for a moment question the sincerity of Chamberlain’s anti-war opinions. I am only saying it was not the only reason for his appeasement policy. The same is also true of those like myself who opposed the invasion of Iraq. I have an intense dislike of war. Especially when the war is an example of a powerful government using its military power against a smaller nation. However, this was only one of many reasons I opposed the war.

There was a variety of different reasons why Chamberlain adopted a policy of appeasement. The death of his brother in the First World War was obviously one reason. However, I am not convinced it was not the only reason, or more importantly, the primary reason for this policy.

No doubt in 50 years historians will be debating what was the primary reason for Blair supporting George Bush in the invasion of Iraq. We all know what Blair will say it was. But will the historians believe him?  

Posted by: John D Clare May 18 2003, 11:02 PM

Actually, at the start of all this, that was all I said! However, I accept that the argument has moved beyond that.

This is assertion, not argument - supposition, and I would want to see some pretty convincing evidence before I would accept it. Although one can think of many possible reasons for appeasement (I have made a list of 19 at http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII_19_Reasons_for_appeasement.htm) all the evidence seems to be that – for Chamberlain – peace was the paramount factor.

An interesting quote from Stanley Baldwin is relevant here, I think. Speaking about his policy of appeasement after the war, he said: "Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming, and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain." So there’s my proof that British leaders could not have gone to war because they were leaders of a democracy and the British people would not have accepted it. Where is the proof that this is a ‘ridiculous’ idea?

I think the emphasis here must be on the word ‘share’. When we see Chamberlain as an appeaser, we have to realise that he was not an appeaser in a vacuum.

1. BALDWIN was Prime Minster from 1935 to 1937, and he really set the policy of appeasement which Chamberlain followed.
- he did nothing about German rearmament (nb the big rally 1935)
- he did nothing when Hitler invaded the Rhineland (march 1936)
- he was sympathetic to the fascists in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 – he persuaded 27 countries to sign a Non-Intervention Pact (and then stood by and watched as Hitler and Mussolini ignored it and sent military support to Franco).
- he openly said that he would not go to war: "With two lunatics like Mussolini and Hitler you can never be sure of anything. But I am determined to keep the country out of war." (april 1936)

2. RAMSEY MACDONALD
The modern folk-singer Al Stewart, in his song ‘Three Mules’, blames THREE British politicians for appeasement:

"Ramsey and Stanley and Neville were the names of the mules
Each wore a bridle encrusted with jewels
And though a murmur of voices was rising behind
Each laboured on and they paid it no mind"

It is easy to forget that Ramsey MacDonald was Prime Minister until 1935 and that – although he was a Labour politician – he ignored Hitler’s rearmament 1933–1935, despite being warned about it by British intelligence.

3. THE FRENCH must bear a lot of the blame.
- remember that, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland, his generals had orders to retreat if the French army did anything at all to prevent it – but the French did nothing.
- remember also that Daladier was VERY happy to sell Czechoslovakia down the river in 1938 – although Czechoslovakia (not Britain!) was an ally of France, Daladier did nothing to help them. (It is strange that it is Chamberlain who gets all the blame for appeasement.)

4. What about THE AMERICANS?
- the Senate was determined to remain isolated from Europe
- American industrialists such as Henry Ford and Irenee du Pont actively financed Hitler
- America didn’t even go to war when it broke out – how’s that for appeasement?

The truth is that Chamberlain was an appeaser at a time when every other western leader was an appeaser. No other major power would have gone to war on Britain’s side. Even at home, Chamberlain would have struggled for allies if he had gone bellicose. Churchill was a hawk – but then he was ‘out’, and never likely to get ‘in’. And he certainly wasn’t a substantial enough ally in a war with Germany.
Until March 1939, for ANY western leader, war was simply not an option.
Which is why to say that Chamberlain was responsible for WWII is unjustified.

Posted by: John Simkin May 19 2003, 09:29 AM

I of course agree that Chamberlain was not alone in this appeasement policy.   King George VI needs to take a lot of the blame (see for example the letters that passed between the king and Chamberlain during this period).

It was a great tragedy that in France  Leon Blum lost power to Daladier in April 1938. I am sure that Blum, with his Popular Front background, would not have gone along with Daladier’s policy of betraying Czechoslovakia.

I think our main disagreement concerns the possibility of a foreign alliance with France and the Soviet Union. This seems to me the only alternative to war with Germany. Like Churchill I do not believe that Hitler would have been willing to take on such a mighty alliance. If he did argue for it, I am sure he would have been ousted by the German military.

King George VI http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONgeorgeVI.htm

Leon Blum http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblum.htm

Edouard Daladier http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdaladier.htm

Posted by: John D Clare May 19 2003, 05:12 PM

This argument is pure conjecture, and anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn't be able to resist a reply. Where is the evidence that Blum would have stopped Hitler in 1938? It is true that Blum at first tried to declare support for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War but - faced by pressure from Baldwin and a number of his coalition partners in France - he was forced to back down and sign the Non-Intervention Pact (and was thus labelled in the French press as an appeaser). I note also that he was premier of the Popular Front government which sat back and watched Hitler march unopposed into Austria in March 1938. Blum was elected on a platform of reconstruction at home and pacifism in foreign affairs. So much for Blum as a fearless anti-fascist who would have stood up for Czechoslovakia!

I mention this because it is further evidence that, in the 1930s, an aggressive stance against Hitler was just not an option. And the fact that the people of France got rid of Blum in favour of a greater appeaser than he is further evidence of that

It is in this context that we must view Robert's statement that

(Aside: Since when has morality driven international relations? I seem to remember that it was the present Labour government which came in on a 'morality in international relations' ticket - Robin Cook, I seem to remember and... wasn't he the one who resigned because we went to war with Iraq WHATEVER???)

Ultimately, it may be arguable that the clear moral high ground gave Britain the edge in the Battle of Britain, but in 1938 that argument was still only voiced by a small minority. For most people, in 1938 , Czechoslovakia was 'a far-away country... of whom we know nothing' and Chamberlain was 'the man who gave me back my son'.
Not only governments abandoned Czechoslovakia. EVERYBODY left her to her fate. Had Spain knocked the stuffing out of the anti-fascists/Communists? No International Brigades mobilised to pay homage to the Sudetenland. In 1938, as an individual as well as government issue, it was just a lost cause.

Which brings me back to the clear conclusion that Chamberlain was right in 1938 to appease. If he had tried to do anything else he would have found himself isolated internationally, in the loony lot at home, and lacking ANY military means of opposing Hitler anyway!

Roberts is wrong. In 1938, it was INVOLVEMENT which was unthinkable from a strategic point of view and (given the self-determination argument) pretty shaky from a moral point of view as well.

Posted by: John Simkin May 20 2003, 06:52 AM

It is of course conjecture about what Blum would have done if he was in Daladier’s position. However, we do know what Daladier and Chamberlain did and so we can criticise their betrayal of Czechoslovakia. Blum might have betrayed Czechoslovakia if he had been in power. So might have Winston Churchill if he had been prime minister. However, as you say, this is conjecture. All we have to go on is what they were saying at the time and their past record. We tend to believe Churchill, why not Blum? I hope it is not because he was French. Remember, Blum was Jewish and had good reason to oppose Hitler (in fact he spent the war in a concentration camp).

Blum’s mistake in 1938 was to split with his former allies in the French Communist Party. Like Chamberlain he should have done what Churchill was urging, formed an alliance with the Soviet Union. It is noticeable you always ignore that part of the argument. I will say once again, there was three major options for Chamberlain in 1938/39: (1) appeasement; (2) war with Germany; (3) a British/French/Soviet alliance. For the only time in his life, Churchill got a major political decision right. Chamberlain got it wrong and we paid dearly for that mistake.

Posted by: John Simkin May 22 2003, 08:55 AM

Chamberlain obviously did not trust Stalin (nor Hitler for that matter). However, there was another more important reason why he did not agree to an alliance with the Soviet Union. If this had happened it would almost certainly have led to Hitler being ousted by a military coup. This would have made the Soviet Union stronger and raised the possibility of a left-wing revolution in Germany. To conservatives in Britain this was the worse possible outcome of the conflict that was taking place in Europe. That is why I don’t think Churchill would have been in favour of an alliance with the Soviet Union if he had been prime minister in 1938. He would for example had difficulty persuading the rest of the party to agree to this policy. I suspect, like Chamberlain, he also thought that an alliance with the Soviet Union would bring down Hitler and create serious problems for Britain in the future. I personally do not think Stalin had expansionist desires in the 1930s (he had enough problems controlling what he already had). However, that was not the view of the conservatives and the fascists.