Posted on 06/14/2026 6:42:24 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
The last Prime Minister to resign over national security was Neville Chamberlain in 1940. Eighty six years later, Sir Keir Starmer’s defence secretary and armed forces minister have resigned because they believe the current PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer are endangering national security through their refusal to fund the armed services properly. The UK is ranked 31st out of 32 on a database comparing how Nato members are meeting their rearmament promises. The only country below us is Iceland, which has no armed forces.
There could be no worse an accusation by a (now former) Defence Secretary. This should be climactic for Starmer. And yet there is zero possibility of him resigning in shame or, as with Chamberlain, having lost the confidence of his own MPs.
Chamberlain’s name is infamous for appeasement: for sending the message to Hitler that Britain was weak and would not protect our allies. In 2014, Putin learned a similar lesson about the West from his invasion of Crimea – and that lesson led to the subsequent invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Starmer has been widely praised – not least by John Healey in his resignation letter – for his support for Ukraine since taking office in 2024. But in reality that support is little more than verbal. Our armed forces are hollowed out and cannot meet even the existing demands placed on them – let alone step up support for Ukraine.
Chamberlain is rightly reviled over appeasement. But when the history comes to be written, Starmer’s record may be viewed as even worse. The case for Chamberlain has always been that Munich bought extra time to rearm in 1938, so that by the time Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 we were more prepared.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.com ...
Agreed
Even Nevil Chamberlin had some good points. He wasn’t totally evil.
Chamberlain was UK patriot. Naive, but a patriot. He wanted to protect the UK and keep it out of another world war.
Starmer wants to destroy the UK and submit the entire kangdom to the Islamic invaders.
Starmer and his wife knelt for George Floyd and he said muslims are the face of modern Britain ,LOL
Neville Chamberlain was a patriot but he was incompetent.
I think he’s worse than Chamberlain. Chamberlain had to deal with Hitler.
Starmer is more like Vidkun Quisling, IMO. He could act in the Interests of the UK and the native citizens of the British Isles. But he seems to be opposed to his own countrymen’s interest and in the interest of Islamic migrants. It’s like he takes orders from others and acts in their interests instead. But who gives him those marching orders or stays his hand from prosecuting wrong-doers among those migrants?
My point: Hitler was Chamberlain’s foil. Who is Starmer’s foil that is somehow outwitting him? No one. He acts in the interest of migrants—even and especially when they do wrong and will not assimilate—when he should be acting in the interests of Native Britons.
The empire was intact when Chamberlain left office can’t say the same for Churchill
Neville Chamberlain didn’t let a few million military-age German men into England and let them embed themselves in British society.
When Hitler didn’t keep the Munich agreement Chamberlain began preparing for war. The Spitfire, the Hurricane, and Matilda II tank were available in numbers because of Chamberlain.
The empire only worked as long as "do as I say, not as I do" could suffice as a governing principle. The emerging information culture of the 20th century meant that that approach to government wasn't going to be sustainable.
Chamberlain left office in May of 1940 and was succeeded by Churchill in June that year. On June 30th, the Nazis invaded the Channel Islands and remained there for the whole war. Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Starmer is giving Britain to terrorists.
Starmer should receive the same ending as him too.
Neville Chamberlin did not lose the Empire; Churchill did.
There is an interesting take on Chamberlain, although I won’t go into it here.
There is nothing more to add. Starmer is anti-British. Chamberlain was simply unrealistic, but British.
,,, would there be any funding left for the military after State paid hotel bills for those landing in Britain uninvited - and accessing the NHS without being budgeted for?
Neville Chamberlain still loved Britain and its people.
He knew Britain was not ready for war, and tried his best to avoid it.
Yes, in hindsight, it was the wrong approach.
Chamberlain gets a bad rap
Far more than he deserves and had to deal with a nation unwilling to go to war despite his own concerns
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.