Neville Chamberlain: The Passionate Radical Hardcover – 2 Sept. 2021

An outstanding biography that corrects not only the widespread caricature of Neville Chamberlain juxtaposed with Churchill but as a key indeed, invaluable member of his Wartime Cabinet. It also emphasizes Chamberlain's foresight by rearming Great Britain while talking to Hitler, that enabled the RAF to win the aerial battle with the Luftwaffe. Chamberlain's image as an appeaser of Nazism eclipses - perhaps more actually, totally eviscerates - his role as a social reformer decades before the post war Attlee government implemented such policies.

History unfairly judges him on the appeasement issue, where he was far from the biggest advocate rather than a lifetime of achievement.

This is a well-written and well-researched book. Neville Chamberlain was undoubtedly a more interesting man than is usually assumed. The author portrays him as something of a man of action in his youth but this, it seems to me, is almost irrelevant. He is forever remembered for his 'peace in our times' declaration (although these were not the words he used) and no revelations about his youthful adventures or his wide reading can detract from his foolishness in thinking he could negotiate with Hitler. The book properly points out that he did prepare for war, but it was rather too little and, through no fault of his own (since he only became Prime Minister in 1937), far too late. However, his apparent pacifism and weakness (he was neither a pacifist nor weak) must have helped to embolden the Nazi regime in its aggression. He was not a bad man but he was not the ideal Prime Minister to have in the years leading up to the Second World War.

There is a need for a modern, comprehensive and balanced biography of Neville Chamberlain. Unfortunately, though useful, this isn't it. It is fairly short and not at all comprehensive, but does give a more balanced appraisal of a man who perhaps was not as useless a PM as previously thought. It is generally well written. There are however some signs of sloppy writing or editing that cannot be ignored:1. On page 169 Reid states that "On 22 January, Snowden, Samuel and Sinclair said they would resign rather than support free trade." These individuals were, in fact free traders and therefore the sentence cannot be right. Abandon must have been meant rather than support. The arguments over free trade and tariffs in the 1930s is complicated enough without mistakes like this.2. Page 181. "MacDonald's third premiership lasted only from June 1935 to May 1937..." In fact these dates refer to Stanley Baldwin's third period as PM, not MacDonald's. The paragraph in which this sentence appears is, in fact all to do with MacDonald so it seems that the wrong dates have been given. However, the last sentence refers to the last two years of Baldwin's third premiership. The paragraph is, therefore, a complete muddle.3. On page 279 Reid repeats the myth that Roosevelt announced the Allies' policy of seeking unconditional surrender "off the cuff" at the press conference following the Casablanca Conference in January 1943. In reality, this policy had already been agreed by Churchill and the British War Cabinet and in making the announcement Roosevelt was in fact reading from an agreed declaration.4. On page 283 the date of the book "The Appeasers" by Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott is given as 1964 at the top of the page and 1963 at the bottom of the same page - sloppy or what?