Talk:Neville Chamberlain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Peer review Neville Chamberlain has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neville Chamberlain article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Comments from Wikipedia:Peer review#Neville Chamberlain

(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

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

[edit] Harry Potter

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

He was stupid and cowardly politician

Mieszko 12:03, 16 Juni 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Re dodgy Footnote 2 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{fact}} 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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