Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Remembering Neville Chamberlain

Friday, 12th November 2010

70 years ago today, Winston Churchill reported to the House of Commons that Neville Chamberlain had died. Since Chamberlain is so often traduced these days, it's worth republishing Churchill's balanced, moving verdict:

Since we last met, the House has suffered a very grievous loss in the death of one of its most distinguished Members and of a statesman and public servant who, during the best part of three memorable years, was first Minister of the Crown.

The fierce and bitter controversies which hung around him in recent times were hushed by the news of his illness and are silenced by his death. In paying a tribute of respect and of regard to an eminent man who has been taken from us, no one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has formed or expressed upon issues which have become a part of history; but at the Lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.

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

But it is also a help to our country and to our whole Empire, and to our decent faithful way of living that, however long the struggle may last, or however dark may be the clouds which overhang our path, no future generation of English-speaking folks—for that is the tribunal to which we appeal—will doubt that, even at a great cost to ourselves in technical preparation, we were guiltless of the bloodshed, terror and misery which have engulfed so many lands and peoples, and yet seek new victims still. Herr Hitler protests with frantic words and gestures that he has only desired peace. What do these ravings and outpourings count before the silence of Neville Chamberlain's tomb? Long and hard, hazardous years lie before us, but at least we entered upon them united and with clean hearts.

I do not propose to give an appreciation of Neville Chamberlain's life and character, but there were certain qualities, always admired in these Islands, which he possessed in an altogether exceptional degree. He had a physical and moral toughness of fibre which enabled him all through his varied career to endure misfortune and disappointment without being unduly discouraged or wearied. He had a precision of mind and an aptitude for business which raised him far above the ordinary levels of our generation. He had a firmness of spirit which was not often elated by success, seldom downcast by failure and never swayed by panic. When, contrary to all his hopes, beliefs and exertions, the war came upon him, and when, as he himself said, all that he had worked for was shattered, there was no man more resolved to pursue the unsought quarrel to the death. The same qualities which made him one of the last to enter the war, made him one of the last who would quit it until the full victory of a righteous cause was won.

I had the singular experience of passing in a day from being one of his most prominent opponents and critics to being one of his principal lieutenants, and on another day of passing from serving under him to become the head of a Government of which, with perfect loyalty, he was content to be a member. Such relationships are unusual in our public life. I have before told the House on the morrow of the Debate which in the early days of May challenged his position, he declared to me and a few other friends that only a National Government could face the storm about to break upon us, and that if he were an obstacle to the formation of such a Government, he would instantly retire. Thereafter, he acted with that singleness of purpose and simplicity of conduct which at all times, and especially in great times, ought to be a model for us all.

When he returned to duty a few weeks after a most severe operation, the bombardment of London and of the seat of Government had begun. I was a witness during that fortnight of his fortitude under the most grievous and painful bodily afflictions, and I can testify that, although physically only the wreck of a man, his nerve was unshaken and his remarkable mental faculties unimpaired.

After he left the Government he refused all honours. He would die like his father, plain Mr. Chamberlain. I sought the permission of the King however to have him supplied with the Cabinet papers, and until a few days of his death he followed our affairs with keenness, interest and tenacity. He met the approach of death with a steady eye. If he grieved at all, it was that he could not be a spectator of our victory, but I think he died with the comfort of knowing that his country had, at least, turned the corner.

At this time our thoughts must pass to the gracious and charming lady who shared his days of triumph and adversity with a courage and quality the equal of his own. He was, like his father and his brother, Austen, before him, a famous Member of the House of Commons, and we here assembled this morning, Members of all parties, without a single exception, feel that we do ourselves and our country honour in saluting the memory of one whom Disraeli would have called an "English worthy."

Of course, this was Churchill in magnanimous mode. But Attlee's remarks were just as generous. Sadly, Churchill's suggestion that history would honour Chamberlain has not held. We all know how Munich has been abused in recent years, but if Chamberlain, who was in his way a tragic figure, proved mistaken he erred for the right and understandable reasons. That he was "contradicted by events" is a different matter.

Filed under: Chamberlain (5 more articles) , Churchill (14 more articles) , House of Commons (45 more articles) , World War 2 (72 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (13)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Chris

November 12th, 2010 3:46pm Report this comment

Chamberlain stalled. He bought time and by doing so made victory possible. Britain couldn't have fought any earlier and he knew it.

He doesn't deserve the insults of all the armchair generals who've failed to understand what we owe to him.

Yam Yam

November 12th, 2010 3:54pm Report this comment

As Henry Kissinger once observed, had the Allies moved decisively in 1936 or 1938 to 'take Hitler out' (as Bush and Blair did against Saddam Hussein in 2003), then Baldwin and Chamberlain would have been damned for eternity - not least by their opponents on the political left - as war-mongering imperialists ganging up on a misunderstood German nationalist.

ndm

November 12th, 2010 4:10pm Report this comment

Yam Yam writes:

-- As Henry Kissinger once observed, had the Allies moved decisively in 1936 or 1938 to 'take Hitler out' (as Bush and Blair did against Saddam Hussein in 2003), then Baldwin and Chamberlain would have been damned for eternity - not least by their opponents on the political left - as war-mongering imperialists ganging up on a misunderstood German nationalist.

Frankly, who cares what Henry Kissinger thinks given that he has to take legal advice every time he leaves the sanctuary of the United States. The conflation of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein is utterly ludicrous.

On the day of Chamberlain's death the United States of America was still appeasing Germany. Indeed, another year would pass before the US finally joined the war against Nazi Germany - and even then it was only after the attack on Pearl Harbor and a declaration of war by Germany. That is the stuff of appeasement.

I remain amazed at the amount of national forgetting that goes on whenever American commentators criticize Chamberlain for his appeasement.

TomTom

November 12th, 2010 4:52pm Report this comment

Churchill as Chancellor cut British interwar defence budgets as Interest on Debt became 30% Government Spending. Neville Chamberlain as PM from 1937 INCREASED Defence to No.1 spending priority.

Those who advocate Britain attacking Germany with which it has cordial relations interwar, should ask why Kennedy did not go to war over Berlin in 1962 when the GDR violated the Potsdam Agreement and built the Berlin Wall.....or why Truman failed to start a nuclear war in 1948 over the Berlin Blockade.

Had the US gone to war in 1948 Stalin would not have tried Korea which ended with his death; and had the Berlin Wall been stopped the Cuba Crisis would not have occurred.

Just why Britain should go to war to stop Hitler attacking Stalin is unclear, but Colonel Beck lied to Chamberlain and tricked Britain into giving a Guarantee so Poland could play Britain off against Germany in a bluff which failed

Vulture

November 12th, 2010 4:59pm Report this comment

I fear you are demonstrating your historical ignorance, Alex.

Churchill was being magnanimous for understandable reasons of political calculation. The Conservative party - of which Chamberlain remained leader after Churchill had become PM - remained overwhelmingly Chamberlainite and only accepted Churchill on great suffrance.

His position was insecure at least until the end of 1942.

Chamberlain was a monster of vanity who thought he could do business with Hitler though he knew absolutely nothing about foreign affairs. Even his declaration of war was all about him - bemoaning in funereal terms the fact that his search for peace had failed. Listen to it : its hardly the stuff to give the troops.

Moreover Chamberpot was the PM who brought us the unlovely arts of blackening his own colleagues. (Today we call it 'briefing against') -and subsidised a magazine called, with Orwellian irony, 'Truth' to do just that.

Even after the war broke out he was trying to negotiate with the Germans while the rest of the nation was girding itself for war.

Hitler had the right take on Chamberlain:
'I saw the enemy at Munich' he told his Generals. 'They are worms'. God rot him.

cg

November 12th, 2010 5:45pm Report this comment

Many genuine historians honour Chamberlain and rightly scorn those who use appeasement as a weapon of derision. However, it's a bit like the First World War. the public image will always be of futility and stupidity, despite historical research which has undermined this received wisdom, the same is true for Chamberlian unfortunately.
One other irony is that the anti-appeasers of today who are so quick to invoke the spirit of Churchill forget (or most probably don't even know) that he spent a lot of time calling for the 'appeasement' of Italy and Japan, rightly realising that Britian could not afford too many enemies at the same time. Both during and after the war, his policies towards the USSR could be viewed as appeasement, or more accurately as trying to protect world peace and British interests. Churchill is magnified for it while Chamberlain is denigrated for doing the same thing.

Ben G

November 12th, 2010 6:08pm Report this comment

Vulture - what a lot of rot - and what an appropriate name. "Truth" had been around for mane years before Chamberlain. If you think he was the first PM to blacken his colleagues (your evidence?), you are sadly mistaken. Try Robert Walpole - t'was ever thus.

Baron

November 12th, 2010 6:26pm Report this comment

Alex, I’m afraid like Vulture@ 4.59 I, too, cannot share your take on the man, but must declare an interest. I come from the neck of the woods that was the subject of the Munich Agreement.

I had a chance to have a look at the political deed from a short distance when it was on display in the Prague’s National Museum in 2008. Just thirteen typed sentences spread over four pages were sufficient to reduce the democratic and peaceful Czechoslovak State to a sorry remnant of its existence. In the three documents on show, (in English, Italian, and German; The French didn’t feel obliged to lend theirs; The Czechs didn’t qualify for even a copy even though their country was the object of the deal) Hitler’s signature stands out the most. In bold black ink it sits above the signatures of the two Prime Ministers (Chamberlain and Daladier), and that of Mussolini. It could not have been intentional, but Chamberlain’s autograph appears the faintest, as if the pen felt ashamed to leave a more distinct imprint on this act of infamy-cum-naivety by the man who inscribed it on the document.

Before departing for Munich, Chamberlain quoted Shakespeare’s words from Henry IV: ‘Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety’. How easy it was to pluck a flower from someone else’s garden. After his return from Munich: ‘This is the second time that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time’. A strange notion of peace – around 60mn dead in some six years that followed.

Yow Min Lye

November 12th, 2010 6:52pm Report this comment

ndm - I think Yam Yam was merely trying to point out that hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially to an international left is always prepared to assume the best of everybody elses country and the worst of their own.

Olaf Rye

November 12th, 2010 7:56pm Report this comment

It should be recalled, too, that Chamberlain was a veteran of WW1 and was horrified by war. He assumed that Hitler, another veteran, would entertain a similar aversion because of his experiences. In this manner, Chamberlain's psychological scars misled him into assuming that all that have seen war would inveterately oppose it unless absolutely necessary. On the other hand, Churchill saw the Nazis and communists for what they were: evil totalitarians and had no hesitation in resisting them. Nonetheless, he had no combat experience at all. The decisions and fortunes of both these men were quite remarkable for they inverted the usual pattern.

Yow Min Lye

November 13th, 2010 8:25am Report this comment

Olaf Rye - I think you'll find Churchill had plenty of combat experience garnered in India, Sudan, South Africa and on the Western Front.

Olaf Rye

November 13th, 2010 9:04am Report this comment

Sorry, Yow--you are quite right. I meant to say combat experience in WW1 !

Vulture

November 13th, 2010 11:54am Report this comment

@Olaf Rye:

You are completely incorrect Olaf: Chamberlain - unlike so many politicians of his era ( eg. Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Duff Cooper) did NOT fight in WW1 or any other war - he had no combat or military experience whatsoever. Which was among many reasons that ruled him out as a national war leader - though in his colossal vanity he attempted to cling on and do just that.

@Ben G. I did not say that Chamberlain founded 'Truth' I said that he subsidised it. (If you want the sorry facts about it please read 'Twilight of Truth' by Richard Cockett.)

I wrote that Hitler had the right take on Chamberlain when he called him a 'worm'. So did Lloyd George, who knew him for decades.
In LG's opinion Chamberlain was: 'A pinhead in a wing collar...who would have made an adequate Lord Mayor of Birmingham in a poor year.'

Actually, I don't think he was that good.

Post comment