Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975
I have read speculation that Chamberlain was trying to, at the least, stall as much as he could.

I've never read concrete development of that thesis though.

Know of any good info on it?

12 posted on 09/04/2011 12:49:35 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: El Sordo
I like A.J.P. Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War for its discussion of Chamberlain, but Dutton's more recent Neville Chamberlain is fairly sympathetic as well.

Chamberlain was naive, I think, when it came to Hitler. He wasn't just stalling - he genuinely hoped Hitler would prove to be willing to turn away from aggression. But he wasn't so naive as to put all his hopes into that. He hoped to avoid war, but knew he might not be able to - and so he supported preparations to deal with that eventuality. To me, the most compelling evidence in his favour is that when he was forced to retire on the grounds of ill health in mid 1940 (he had cancer and he wouldn't survive the year), Winston Churchill tried to persuade him to accept Britain's highest order of Chivalry - as a Knight of the Garter. Churchill felt that Chamberlain was worthy of that. In his writings, Churchill condemned many of the choices Chamberlain made, and with justification at times - but he still saw a man who had given his best and his all for his country. And had done well enough.

15 posted on 09/04/2011 1:21:44 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson