Talk:Neville Chamberlain/Archive 1

Leo Amery
I'm don't think Leo Amery was secretary of state for India at the time of his House of Commons speech referred to, although I'm not sure on the point. He was later, in the Churchill coalition. Geoff97 18:05, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Leo Amery was indeed a backbencher at the time. A few days later he was appointed Secretary of State for India in the new Churchill government.

Thank you for clarifying this. Geoff97 18:05, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Appeasement
Re appeasement - I don't think the 'gain time for rearmament' argument was correct. AFAIK Chamberlain wanted to avoid war at any price, because he believed that a war between the western democracies and the Nazis would simply clear the way for the Soviets to conquer Europe. Any further information on this? GCarty


 * I think that's a bogus argument. In the 30s the Soviet Union was not a military super-power that was capable of conquering Europe. I think that that's a bit of 50s American revisionism. In a letter in March of 1939 Chamberlain wrote the following concerning allying with the Soviet Union - "I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears. Moreover, she is both hated and suspected by many of the smaller States, notably by Poland, Rumania and Finland." Mintguy (T)


 * On my earlier argument - the Soviets conquered half of Europe despite American involvement in WWII. If Pearl Harbor had not happened and the Nazis had still lost, the Soviets would have conquered all of Europe.  This was Chamberlain's ultimate nightmare.  Here's a medieval analogy:


 * Western Democracies = Byzantine Empire
 * Nazis = Sassanid Empire
 * Soviets = Islamic Caliphate


 * Get the picture?


 * GCarty


 * This is bogus. In the 1930s the Soviet Union was NOT capable of conquering half of Europe. They were not capable of winning a war against Finland!! (see the Winter War). It was only after Germany had sapped her strength over an 2500 mile wide front pushing towards the Volga in the south and a massive re-armament programme that the Soviet Union had the capacity to overwhlem Germany. Mintguy (T)


 * Historical analogies do not particularly give us any useful picture. Certainly this one does not.  At any rate, I think the idea that the Soviets would be the winners out of a war between the west and Germany was in Chamberlain's mind, but I don't really think that was the dominant motive.  I'd suggest that the desire to rearm was also not Chamberlain's real motive.  And that Chamberlain was not desirous of peace at any price - if he had been, he'd have resigned when it became clear that his government was pursuing a policy that was leading towards war.  I would suggest that appeasement was based largely on the idea that war is a bad thing, and that it would be better to sacrifice some weird Eastern European countries "of which we know little" if this would appease Germany and guarantee the general peace.  Only when it became clear that Hitler would not be appeased, and that the general peace was thus not guaranteed by such measures, did Chamberlain turn to more muscular means.  The importance of the Soviet Union was at best secondary in the mind of Chamberlain and other British statesmen.  (But let's note that the threat from the Soviet Union was not perceived to be military, but to be socio-political - not conquest by the Red Army, but revolution at home, was feared in case of war).


 * At any rate, talking about what would have happened if the US had not entered the war is ridiculous. Let's recall that the Soviet Union didn't enter the war until 1941, too - by which time the US was well on the way to direct involvement, with or without Pearl Harbor/the German declaration of war.  Americans and Germans had been engaging in undeclared naval warfare for some months before December 1941.  And counterfactuals are essentially fruitless.  They don't tell us anything, and they're unprovable. john k 18:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Domestic policy
Chamberlain's domestic policy receives little attention from historians but was considered to be highly significant and radical at the time. -Why don't we try to improve on that? Aniboy2000 00:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly try to improve on that if I knew more about it...I agree that it's lame, and it's been lame for quite some time. AJP Taylor's History of Britain 1914-1945 would likely be a good place to start, but I don't really have the time to look into it myself. You, of course, are welcome to edit it. john k 04:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've just added some stuff taken straight out of Taylor. I'll add some other stuff later on but at the moment my researches are focused on foreign policy in the period. Timrollpickering 18:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dodgy para
This stuff has been in this article for a long time but I've only just realyl noticed it. I'm concerned about the paragraph that begins "However, this view has been criticised as being inconsistent with the historical facts. Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft." -Peacetime draft? (obviously written by an American) - Conscription was instituted on the first day of the war under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. - What was this peacetime draft? Also AFAIK spending was only increased from the beginning of 1939. This whole para seems a bit dodgy to me.Mintguy (T) 02:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Steps towards conscription were taken before the actual outbreak of war (can't remember the details at this precise moment but I'll look them up). Timrollpickering 02:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought Baldwin was the one who started the rearmament ball rolling, on the sly, and Chamberlain sort of had to continue it to appease (heh) Parliament, particularly the disgruntled members of his own party. This paragraph annoys me too, honestly -- I just haven't seen anything to justify that perspective. Exactly how long was he planning to wait for the British army to catch up to the Wehrmacht? He was ready to sell out Poland, too, and I don't think there was anything "calculated and necessary" about that.


 * Thing is, I'd rewrite this, but I don't know how far NPOV reaches in these cases; do we have to include this just because "some historians" (which ones, please?) think it's true? Even if they do, I don't think the facts back it up. Chamberlain's a bit of a cipher at times, but I don't see this interpretation as valid. Madame Sosostris 05:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, you know what? I'm rewriting it. That paragraph was added three years ago by an anonymous IP whose edit summary reads "added so [sic] information from a usenet discussion". Here's the page difference: . I don't know who these amazing usenet historians are, or why they have such a strong following among anonymous IPs, but their work doesn't need to be represented here. Madame Sosostris 05:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First non-Trinitarian?
''As a Unitarian, he became the first British Prime Minister not to accept even nominally the basic trinitarian belief of the Church of England. This did not bar him from advising the King on appointments in the established church.''

I'm sure there were earlier non-Trinitarian PMs - wasn't there anoth Unitarian in the 18th or 19th century? And wasn't George Canning an atheist? Timrollpickering 18:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that, but he can't have been public about it. Back in the 1820's one still had to swear a Christian oath on entering the Commons, that didn't end until Bradlaugh. Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A Google thread from the past suggests that the Duke of Grafton (1768-1770) was a unitarian. His own article suggests he became prominent later in life though - anyone know for sure? Timrollpickering 20:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Facts about the British Prime Ministers (published 1995) states at page 53 that Grafton was a unitarian. It includes the comment that he refused an honorary LL.D. from Cambridge, to which he was entitled as a former Chancellor of the University, because he disliked "subscribing to the Articles of the Church of England". As for Canning, this is more difficult. He was formally a member of the Church of England, but as one former Monarch pointed out, one cannot open windows into mens' souls. Dbiv 01:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images
Given the lenngth this article is now at, I think it could use a few more pictures but there don't seem to be many obvious ones on Wikipedia. Does anyone know of any good ones in the public domain? I've spotted one of a young Chamberlain on this page but it's in (I think) Swedish and I don't know if it's in the public domain or how to confirm this. Timrollpickering 15:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We should include a picture of him with Hitler. I don't know much about what is public domain and what isn't, so I'm not sure which one we could use. Personally, I like this one, but there are plenty more. Just google chamberlain+hitler, looking for images. This one isn't bad. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Speak for England!
The article identifies Leo Amery as the Conservative backbench MP who shouted out "Speak for England, Arthur!" at Arthur Greenwood on 2nd September 1939. There is a lot of debate about exactly who it was. Harold Nicolson, writing his diary that night, identified Bob Boothby. Amery put in his memoirs that he had shouted "Speak for England" whereas Nicolson reported Boothby as saying "You speak for Britain". Perhaps the certainties in the article should be converted into probabilities? Dbiv 02:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd always seen it attributed to Amery. I have William Manchester's Last Lion in front of me at the moment and he attributes it to Amery, citing Amery. However, he also credits Boothby with shouting "honour," when Greenwood hesitated, and cites Hansard in support. I don't know if Hansard records interjections; that would surely clear the matter up and I will have access to it over the weekend. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly this is one of the most famous things said in Parliament never to have been recorded in Hansard (because it was a shouted remark from a seated backbencher). Dbiv 04:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The printed version of Amery's diaries includes this for September 2 1939:


 * The House was staggered [by Chamberlain's statement] and I could not help when Greenwood rose shouting to him 'Speak for England.'


 * According to AJP Taylor in English History: 1914-1945, all contemporary newspapers identified Amery as shouting out (and in the 1973 edition's revised bibliography he dismisses reports of others as myths). Boothby is said to have made a heckle later on which influenced Greenwood's speech so it's possible the two were confused. Timrollpickering 11:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. If it's not true, it ought to be. Madame Sosostris 23:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Russophobia?
According to my readings, Britain had a chance to form a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union but didn't do so -- essentially forcing the USSR into the arms of Germany (though I'd never put that into an article). As I understand it, Chamberlain had a lot to do with this -- he didn't like Russia much at all. Is this something that should go in the European policy section? I'm not entirely sure how to work it in, much less make it NPOV. Thoughts? Madame Sosostris 07:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, the Russian negotiations were not particularly well handled. A lot on the left, as well as some around Churchill, were urging an alliance with Russia. However strategically Russia could not get at Germany unless it went through Poland - something the Poles were deeply reluctant to coutnance, given the Russian claims to their eastern territory. A low level diplomatic mission was sent but it seems there wasn't much heart in the negotiations. Also it was taken for granted that communist and fascists states would not reach accord.


 * It should be said that a lot had accused the British of trying to engineer a situation whereby Britain and France could sit back whilst Germany and Russia waged a war that would devastate both. It's possible that demands for an alliance were aimed at preventing this, whilst the government was viewing things from a different perspective.


 * Chamberlain himself was suspicious of the Russians from an ideological point of view. But then for a long time in the Cold War almost all western leaders were. And at a time when the Great Purges had destroyed much of the Soviet military leadership, their ability to wage war was seriously in doubt. Timrollpickering 09:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Such a war would be costly and what would Stalin get out of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
On a different note, you'll notice that I've tried to clean the article up some, per the peer review request; any feedback would be appreciated. Also, those four edits by Mackensen were actually me, because I was an idiot and used his computer without logging him out first. Sorry about that. If you don't like the edits, please don't blame him. Madame Sosostris 08:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've made a few minor word changes to clarify stuff (for example the growth in support for tariffs was marked as much outside Parliament as in) and it does flow a lot smoother now.


 * Some of the sections could perhaps do with reordering. We currently have Appointment as PM, European Policy, Domestic Policy, Agriculture, Ireland, Palestine and then outbreak of war - would it be better to have the two domestic ones before all the overseas areas? Also the Ministerial appointments section orginally prefaced a list of the Cabinets, but now looks odd there - maybe put it after his appointment?


 * Finally we need to beef up the intro section more - any suggestions for essentials? Timrollpickering 09:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sections seem a bit unbalanced, no? A whole section on Palestine, and nothing on India? There should probably be a general Imperial Policy section, don't you think? john k 19:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good points, both of you. This is sort of how I see the article structure working:


 * Early life
 * Lord Mayor of Birmingham
 * Ministerial career (combine "Early ministerial career" and "Ministry of Health")
 * Becoming the heir apparent
 * The formation of National Government
 * Return to the Exchequer
 * Appointment as Prime Minister (combine "Appointment as Prime Minister" with "Ministerial appointments")
 * Domestic policy (combine "Domestic policy" and "The turmoils of agriculture")
 * Relations with Ireland
 * Imperial policy (combine "The Palestine White Paper" with information on India and anything else interesting)
 * European policy
 * Outbreak of war
 * War Premiership
 * Fall and Resignation
 * Lord President of the Council and death
 * Legacy

If someone can jump in and do the "Imperial policy" section, that'd be great -- I'd prefer to avoid any Imperial entanglements. Madame Sosostris 23:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Peer review
(Copied and pasted here to bring local attention.)


 * The lead section could do with some expansion. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "European Policy" seems to be editorialising. Can we cut this back a bit? Apart from this, this is a great article, very informative and the length is just right :-) Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Churchill's speech: Neville Chamberlain
Churchill's speech on the occasion of Chamberlain's death is, in my opinion, some of the best prose in the English language. Would a sentence or two from it be amiss in this article? -- Haukurth 21:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the intriguing comment, Haukurth. I think that a sentence or two about the speech (with the link, if possible) might help readers like me to develop a more nuanced view of Chamberlain and his times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grygiu (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Location of Chamberlain's death
I'd like to call into question the location of Chamberlain's death having been at Heckfield Place. Having worked at that estate, I am rather familiar with its history and the various people who lived there, but never once heard mention of this information. Upon searching at Google, the only mentions I came across to substantiate this point back to this article itself. I also found two mentions of Chamberlain having died at a "Heckfield House" (an estate I don't think I'm aware of), but certainly neither of these seem to have enough backing. Does anyone know more? --SeekingOne 01:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll check both the DNV and Feiling's biography of Chamberlain this evening. It's possible the two have been mixed up. Timrollpickering 13:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I altered the article based on the ODNB. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article quality
This article definitely is of very high quality. I do think it is a bit long however, is it possible to trim / relocate some of the material?

Sorry, but I am always amused at people saying on Wiki--This article is a bit too long-it should be shortened etc etc

Dont you realise that Wiki is not PRINTED!-there is no need to think of the cost of paper etc! .A Wiki article can be as long as anyone likes.Although possibly some of whats written may not be totally relevant it may have some interest however trivial---Proust and Rimbaud both said regarding biography -I must have more detail-Proust -regarding the Versaille peace treaty conference -Yes I know the political details -but what was the colour of the dinner service?

This is an electronic medium so lets have more and more detail! The reader can decide whats relevant!! Winston1911 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow - is this article ready for WP:FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is great! CantorFriedman (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Has anyone else noticed that the Neville in HP shares personality traits with Chamberlain, other than a name?

Removed value judgement
Hi, I removed the following for obvious reasons: "Whatever the "official" legacy of Chamberlain's governing, he remains a man of utmost integrity, insofar as he believed that his actions were for the best. It may be said he remains a man who should be more pitied than scorned, for who can say, given the knowledge of the time, that anyone else could have done as good, if not a better job?" Junes 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Were facts removed?
This article used to say "He retained his leadership of the Conservative Party and announced in his resignation broadcast that he would remain in government as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House. " -is this correct? Jooler 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWamery.htm - an extract from Leo Amery's memoirs -
 *  That same evening Chamberlain, in a farewell broadcast, announced that he was staying on as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, in effect Deputy Prime Minister. The Socialist leaders, who had not been consulted, were furious. They had hoped that Chamberlain would be kept out altogether, and now feared that at the Treasury and in the House the old combination of Chamberlain with Horace Wilson and Margesson, the Chief Whip, would continue to dominate the situation. They saw Churchill next morning, reluctantly accepting Chamberlain's inclusion in the War Cabinet, but protesting vehemently against the position assigned to him.  Jooler 23:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Problematic
This bit needs rewriting:
 * "Most historians believe that Chamberlain, in holding to these views, pursued the policy of appeasement far longer than was justifiable, but it is not exactly clear whether any course could have averted war, and how much better the outcome would have been had armed hostilities begun earlier, given that France, as well, was unwilling to commit its forces, and there were no other effective allies: Italy had joined the Pact of Steel, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact, and the United States was still officially isolationist.
 * "Chamberlain was nicknamed "Monsieur J'aime Berlin" just before the outbreak of hostilities, and remained hopeful up until Germany's invasion of the Low Countries that a peace treaty to avert a general war could be obtained in return for concessions "that we don't really care about". Again this policy was widely criticised both at the time and since; however, given that the French General Staff was determined not to attack Germany but instead remain on the strategic defensive, what alternatives Chamberlain could have pursued were not clear. Instead, he took the months of the Phoney War to complete development of the Spitfire and Hurricane, and to strengthen the RDF or Radar defence grid in England. Both of these priorities would pay crucial dividends in the Battle of Britain."

It presupposes the war was on before the Spit & Hurry were ready, which is mistaken. It presupposes the French were unwilling to aid Britain, which is false. And it misdates the Russo-German treaty, which is after the Munich fiasco, not before. Stalin was perfectly willing to aid Britain & France, but was convinced they were trying to bait him into war with Germany, to their benefit, a perception N aided by British unwillingness to send top-level diplomats to negotiate a treaty with him. I'd take it on, but it's a bit complicated, & I don't want to spend 4-5 graphs replacing 1. Comment? Trekphiler 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment about the Soviets certainly needs to be changed, as does the one about the Pact of Steel, which was signed in spring 1939. At the time of Munich, only the Anti-Comintern Pact joined Germany and Italy. The comment about France ought also to be changed. At any rate, the whole issue is, I think, very complicated. The old school Telford Taylor-style "Appeasement was bad bad bad" business seems to be mostly discredited. But on the other hand, I think this paragraph is bending over backwards a bit to defend Chamberlain. Not sure how to deal with it. john k 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Misquote
Chamberlain is known for having said "peace for our time." Or is it "peace in our time?"

There seems to be a discrepancy with the use of the word "our" versus "in" in that quote, and both versions are backed by reputable sources online.

Can anyone reconcile this discrepancy?

JianLi 01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor text suggestions
In Early life: 1. 'was later became' > later became. 2. 'keen ornithologist' > keen birdwatcher. Ornithologist is the professional, whereas amateur ornithologists are generally called birdwatchers (or, more recently, also birders, but not yet in NC's time).

Location of Death
Where did he die? Berkshire or Hampshire? I think it has to be verified.--218.103.226.86 08:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Operations Executive
The Chamberlain page says that he drew up the remit for the Special Operations Executive but the SOE page doesn't mention this. If the claim is true, it should be added to the SOE page.

Dricherby 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

University Education
The article states that N. Chamberlain was one of only three prime ministers to have not attended Cambridge or Oxford. This description did not include Churchill, who attended Sandhurst, and perhaps others. 28 March 2007 CorcelCorcel 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article merely says that of those PMs that did attend university or college, Neville Chamberlain was one of the three who didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge. Some British PMs didn't go to university at all, for example, Disraeli.


 * "Chamberlain became a day attender at Mason Science College (later the University of Birmingham), as one of only three Prime Ministers to attend a university or college other than Oxford or Cambridge"


 * On another matter, the phrase used by Chamberlain on his return from Munich was "peace for our time". See Keesing's. Norvo 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-inserted "Early ministerial career"
Somewhere along the line, someone seems to have deleted the entire section called "==Early ministerial career==" (complete with its photo and caption!). I cannot see the same information duplicated anywhere else, and I've put it back in. TomRawlinson 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Oxbridge PMs
The bit about Chamberlain being one of only 3 PM to be educated at at a University or College other than Oxford or Cambridge is a bit misleading. I believe Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law both attended the University of Glasgow, although Campbell-Bannerman later went to Cambridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.68.190 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * There seems to be rather more ambiguity about Prime Ministers and universities than is often assumed. It's possible there is a mixing of "graduate of" and "attended" (and possible even the distinction between being an enrolled/matriculated student and attending classes for the public at large). According to the article on Law he attended night classes at Glasgow - does this constitute "going to university"? (And in the 1870s and 1880s the answer might have been different to now.) Ramsay MacDonald attended what is now Birkbeck, University of London, albeit in a period when the nature of the University of London was very different from what it is now, and in any case did not take the exams. Were they internal or external students? Would that distinction have meant anything?


 * In any case the number is going to have change soon regardless - of the declared candidates to succeed Blair, Brown is an Edinburgh man, Meacher attended the London School of Economics (as well as Oxford) and McDonnell went to Brunel and Birkbeck. Timrollpickering 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to update this, as some of this has come up on Talk:Gordon Brown (since he's updated the list!), further digging about can clarify the following:


 * Andrew Bonar Law: A recent short biography (Andrew Taylor Bonar Law in the series "The 20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century", (London; Haus Publishing, 2006) explicitly says (page 4):
 * Law did not attend university... [H]e attended early-morning lectures at Gasgow University before work. His autodidacticisim was, like business, a means to an end: a political career.
 * i.e. Law was not an enrolled (or "matriculated" student). He would have been attending lectures for the public provided by the University of Glasgow.


 * Ramsay MacDonald: The article on the University of London External Programme is now much fuller and makes this easier to explain. Basically from 1858 onwards there were two kinds of students studying for degrees of the University of London - "internals", studying at constituent colleges, and "externals", either studying by themselves through correspondence courses or attending classes at non-constituent institutions who prepare their students for the London exams. Several of the latter institutions, including Birkbeck (some thirty years after MacDonald attended), would subsequently be formally admitted to the university. But prior to that point, I think it's misleading to describe said students as "attending university" (though this is a much more ambiguous area than these hard & fast facts seek), especially as many of the institutions did other courses and weren't just preparing people for University of London exams. MacDonald in the end did not take the exams due to illness, so can be considered an alumnus of Birkbeck (and is acknowledged as such by the college) but not of the university as a whole.


 * Campbell-Bannerman isn't included in such a list as he did attend Oxbridge as well.


 * And Winston Churchill gets cited a few times, but Sandhurst is not a university.


 * Hope that helps clarify any confusion! Timrollpickering 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison With Tony Blair's Resignation
Is the trivia in the section Fall and Resignation about Tony Blair resigning on the same date necessary? I don't think it adds anything to the article at all. RJE42 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Two removals
I commented out these two passages as I believe them to be misleading. If they are to be returned they would need to be referenced. The Battle of the River Plate (among several examples) would appear to show that the Royal Navy (not the "British Navy") was not restricted to patrolling 200 miles from Ireland at all.

"The loss of the treaty ports meant that the British Navy was restricted to a patrolling range some 200 miles west of Ireland in the Atlantic. This meant that German submarines could operate with impunity in the Atlantic until the 1943 development of airborne marine microwave radar, something that could not have been predicted or relied upon in 1938."

"Being able to refuel anti-submarine ships from the Irish coast would have saved thousands of merchant marine lives on the British and American sides."

--John 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

8 or 9 November?
In the box at the right Chamberlain's death is given as 8 November 1940, in the text however, it says 9 November. Which date is right??? --89.59.20.177 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Better referencing the article
Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to aim to get this article much better referenced, using a combination of several biographies of Chamberlain (mailing Feiling, Macleod, Macklin and Self) as well as the DNB. For now I'm citing the DNB wherever I can spot a direct reference but in order to avoid overreliance I'll change some of the refs for basic facts to other biographies as I come to them.

Could people help by sticking tags wherever they spot an unreferenced statement? It will help to target the refs. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On that note, sort-of, why exactly is "In the same year he also gave up the Irish Free State Royal Navy ports." mentioned? There are surely more relevant, pivotal even interesting facts which could be placed in its stead?  Giving up the treaty ports was hardly earth-shattering or even indicative. --Harlsbottom (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Attendants of Oxbridge
It is incorrect to state that only four Prime Ministers have never been to oxford or Cambridge. Including the four listed, Benjamin Disraeli, Sir Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George (included as examples and not a definitive listt) never attended these universities. Either the author needs to recalculate the list to allow for all those who never attended oxbridge, or he must simply remove the comment altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.71.184 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No the comment is about those who attended university and did not go Oxbridge, not about those who didn't go at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neville and Houston Stewart
An IP recently edited both this article and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (an antisemitic racial theorist), linking them to each other and claiming that the men were cousins. While it's a little unusual to footnote a "See also" link, I think this needs to be sourced. Also since neither article otherwise mentions the other man, even if true, I doubt that it's significant enough to merit the link. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

== "After leaving school, Chamberlain became a day attending personthing" shouldn't the last word here be "student" - could someone more experienced than I make the change? Tlemceni (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, once we start 'improving' one another's English ... well, that way madness lies.  But I agree this was an extreme case.   I've substituted day student which I think works at least in British English.   And he was a Brit.   No doubt if someone somewhere has a better idea, we will learn of it in due course...    Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Boring Politics!
I have heard that Neville Chamberlain had tried to prepare the country for war for a while before it actually began however the Labour Party kept voting against Chamberlain's plans because it would effect the jobs of some workers somewhere. I'm not entirely sure whether this is true but if it is you almost begin to feel sorry for him because the argument was so petty in comparison. However before someone gets angry at me i'll state it again, i don't know if this is true! If any could back me up though it would be good! (([User: Willski72]))92.10.10.78 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 25 May 2008

umbrella
I find it surprising that there is no mention in the article of Chamberlain's habit of always carrying an umbrella, and that it became an iconic symbol of appeasement, even in the present time. --rogerd (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

potentially confusing dates
"but it is not exactly clear whether any course could have averted war, and whether the outcome would have been any better had armed hostilities begun earlier, given that France, as well, was unwilling to commit its forces, and there were no other effective allies: Italy had joined the Pact of Steel, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact, and the United States was still officially isolationist."

The paragraph references to "had armed hostilities begun earler" which I assume would mean in 1938. However the Pact of Steel and the Non-Agression pact were signed in 1939 (May and August respectively). So if the paragraph was concerning the hypothesis of war startign in 1938 then these two treaties would not be valid.

I think this paragraph should be rewritten as to eliminate any possible confusions as to date. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

POV material
This paragraph in the Appeasement section seems a little non-neutral to me, it's more commentary than factual:

"The repeated failures of the Baldwin government to deal with rising Nazi power are often laid, historically, on the doorstep of Chamberlain, since he presided over the final collapse of European affairs, resisted acting on military information, lied to the House of Commons about Nazi military strength, shunted out opposition which, correctly, warned of the need to prepare – and above all, failed to use the months profitably to ready for the oncoming conflict. However, it is also true that by the time of his premiership, dealing with the Nazi Party in Germany was an order of magnitude more difficult. Germany had begun general conscription previously, and had already amassed an air arm. Chamberlain, caught between the bleak finances of the depression era and his own abhorrence of war – and a Kriegsherr who would not be denied a war – gave ground and entered history as a political scapegoat for what was a more general failure of political will and vision which had begun with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919."

Maybe the author of the paragraph could adjust it a little. A paragraph weighing up the different arguments on this issue is fine, but the last twenty or so words in particular are quite sweeping in scope and don't seem quite right for a factual encyclopedia. I shall return to the article and mark that section as POV unless someone changes it satisfactorily.--Lopakhin (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
As of today (21st October 2008) I've edited the sentence in which it was estated that "he died and was eaten by giant space wasps". Whoever wrote it, it's not really funny and totally inappropriate. I hope his/her IP can be detected and banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.234.37 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

if only he had been eaten by wasps, right out of his mothers womb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.193.98 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Headings
My first visit to this page - and its unreadable. More headings, or summaries, or something, please. Wizzy… &#9742; 09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

European policy could definitely use some subheadings by someone with a good grasp of 1930s history. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeasement was a popular police
The article didn't tells that appeasement was a popular police, in 1938 and 1939.Right or wrong, appeasement was supported by public opinion in England.This made a bad governmente, but public was at his side, in all the worsest things, he did.Agre22 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

czech gold affair
I couldn't find any mention of the czech gold affair in the article. It is so significant that it should be mentioned in the intro, then an entire section in the article.

Chamberlain: first public appeasment of the nazis then later private appeasment by releasing 6 million pounds of czech gold to fascist germany

Is this item in the article and I missed it? If not, it's a huge ommission. The way the article reads it makes chamberlain look sensible.

14 JUN 09 Tinfoilhelmet (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone
"We can only guess how long would the war last if the numerous weapon factories of Czechoslovakia were not offered to Hitler on a silver plate."

Seems really out of tone compared to the rest of Wikipedia.Alex Klotz (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved European Policy to separate page
I've moved the European Policy section to a separate page. It still needs extensive clean-up, but eases the page size of the main page.

Aacool (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. Considering his appeasement policy is what he is most remembered for, I think the section in the article covering that should be the last to be removed from the main page. I saw no problem with the article length before the move, in fact I thought it was refreshing to have a biographical article on a Prime Minister of adequate length to cover their life. Subpages do not generally have a large readership.--Britannicus (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that on principle the subpage should not have been created. However, I propose to leave it be; I am in the course of reworking this article (all help appreciated), with an eye to a second FAC within 2-3 months and a TFA next May on the 70th anniversary of the fall of the government and will condense the subpage back into the article.  It is much too wordy as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement
I'm going to take a shot at improving this article with references and so forth to try to bring this back to FAC one of these days. No particular hurry, no toes to be stepped on, but let's see if it can be done!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat appropriate that this article is promoted GA on the 69th anniversary of his death.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain, the Appeaser
I was a youth at the time and a tank gunner in Germany after we entered the war.

My memory of American thought at the time was totally unfavorable toward Neville Chamberlain. He was considered responsible for Hitler having invaded Austria, Czechoslovia and then Poland. It was noted widely that a small police force could have stopped Hitler when he entered the Rhineland. Thus Hitler was permitted to develop a military which had been forbidden him. Popular opinion at the time favored Churchill both in the U.S. and in Britain.

--128.104.69.138 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Probably more valuable than much that has been written and published by later "experts." Too bad the Wikipedians will delete your comments, or at least chastise you for making them.Lestrade (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * You do know that Baldwin was Prime Minister during the Rhineland crisis, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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. 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)

The Commonwealth span Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific and The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom "knew nothing" over "far-away countries" in Central Europe? After Munich Britain and France had military obligations toward Czechoslovakia. France betrayed the obligations to Czechoslovakia for the second time. Great Britain and France had to pay heavely. Whether they wanted to or not, they had to fight for the annulment of Munich and the liberation of Czechoslovakia. Munich will stand for ever as a warning to future generations. --Posp68 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (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
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)
 * 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)


 * Plus, in 1938 Soviet Union was allied with France and Czechoslovakia. In september 1939 Soviet Union was to all intents and purposes allied with Nazi Germany because of Munich and Nazi-Germany could start the second world war.--Posp68 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2018 (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  and  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
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, 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? 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?
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)

TFA reruns
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with it other than it's 9 years old and maybe I'd have better sources today.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rerunning the article today makes it seem kind of like an odd statement on the upcoming North Korea summit.... (joking) Brutannica (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Resigning: Norway retreat or invasion of Belgium and France?
The article now says: "Chamberlain resigned the premiership on 10 May 1940 after the Allies were forced to retreat from Norway". I'm not sure this is correct. He resigned on May 10th. Indeed the situation in Norway was discussed in parliament from May 7th, as the article writes, but the actual withdrawal of Allied troops was only decided on May 25th (see Norwegian_Campaign). It appears that more decisive was the fact that on May 10th, Germany had invaded the low countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and France). - DePiep (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this article, "on 26 April the War Cabinet ordered a withdrawal [from Norway]", and it was after the Norway Debate, and then Labour's refusal to join a coalition under Chamberlain, that he decided to resign. The lead could use clarifying. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The debate was about the war conduct in general, I understand, and so not "after the Allies were forced to retreat". BTW, at that moment only the withdrawal from southern Norway was made. - DePiep (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The debate was primarily about the Norway Campaign. In opening the debate "Chamberlain said that since his previous statement to the House on progress in Norway on Thursday, 2 May, British forces had successfully withdrawn from southern Norway." Attlee, Sinclair, Keyes, all spoke about Norway in their opening speeches. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, but that was the only war UK was making at that moment. I also read they spoke about strategic errors etcetera. Anyway, when Germany attacked its Western neighbours, Chamberlain was still PM: clearly by then the Norway debate had not removed him. At least I'd expect a notion that the German westward attack tipped the scales?
 * What do the sources say? Any mentioning of the German 10th of May attack as being influential? - DePiep (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Chamberlain had decided to resign on the 9th, on the 10th when news of the attacks came in he initially hesitated about resigning, but on getting confirmation that Labour would not serve under him he went to the Palace. I suggest you read our article Norway Debate. Also, this is not the place for speculation or "what ifs". DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No "what if". At least we should establish that the quote in my OP (taken from the lede) is incorrect per the timeline of events ("retreat from Norway" was not enforced at that moment). Also, reading the articles it is right to question if the German attacks on May 10th indeed were not of influence (and so would not require being mentioned re this). I cannot access the sources though. - DePiep (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The German attacks of the 10th did not cause or influence Chamberlain's decision on the 9th. We do not need sources to say this, we simply need to understand that the 9th was before the 10th. If you have a constructive suggestion for improving the lead then make it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neville chamberlain1921.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neville chamberlain1921.jpg

Incorrect Label of Elizabeth The Queen Mother
The article refers to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as Queen Elizabeth even though she was only Queen consort (hence why the current Queen is Elizabeth II and not III).

I would edit this, but since I am not a member it would likely get automatically reverted.2A02:C7F:A41A:AA00:450B:22E8:D4D:B1CE (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which usage you think is incorrect? I just looked at all uses of "Queen" and they seem OK to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Disputes
Hello, there is a section on Chamberlain's page titled 'Path to war (October 1938 – August 1939)'. It is in this section that my additions have been repeatedly removed by a fellow contributor. If you are the contributor that continues to remove it, can you please see my attached screenshot of the content and tell me what you would like adjusted instead of continually removing? Thank you. If anyone else on this board can also help with this issue, that would be great.

Morral08 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Morral08