Churchill, Chamberlain and Appeasement by G C Peden - review by Richard Vinen

Richard Vinen

Best of Adversaries

Churchill, Chamberlain and Appeasement

By

Cambridge University Press 418pp £29.99
 

When Neville Chamberlain died of cancer in November 1940, just a few months after stepping down as prime minister, Winston Churchill praised him in the House of Commons, commenting on the idealism that had made Chamberlain pursue peace and the determination with which he had pursued war once he recognised that it was inevitable. Churchill could afford to be generous (revealingly, he was less inclined to say kind things about Chamberlain’s more politically formidable predecessor as Tory leader and prime minister, Stanley Baldwin). Chamberlain had brought Churchill back into the Cabinet when war broke out in September 1939 and had served loyally under him after Churchill’s appointment as prime minister in May 1940. Most importantly, Chamberlain was useful to Churchill because the contrast between the two men worked so much to the latter’s advantage. Churchill looked like the generous and slightly disreputable uncle whose arrival at Christmas lunch evokes cheers from the children. Chamberlain looked like the head clerk from accounts who is not going to rest until he has checked the last penny in an expenses claim.

Chamberlain, the man with the umbrella, and Churchill, the man with the cigar, were both brand names by 1930 and both had spent much of their adult lives trying to live up to the reputations of their impossible fathers. Chamberlain’s dramatic flight to meet Hitler at Munich in September 1938 meant that the word ‘appeasement’ was associated with him as clearly as if it had been tattooed on his forehead. Churchill’s opposition to the Munich Agreement was equally dramatic and had a spectacular effect on his reputation. He was a great gambler and it sometimes seemed as if this one last spin of the roulette wheel effaced every losing bet he had made in his long career up to that point.

G C Peden suggests that the contrast between the two men was less black-and-white than it first appears. He does this partly by cutting them both down to size or, at least, by demonstrating that their actions only make sense when placed in a broader context. This is provided

Sign Up to our newsletter

Receive free articles, highlights from the archive, news, details of prizes, and much more.

Follow Literary Review on Twitter