Was Neville Chamberlain a good guy or bad guy in World War 2?

Answer 1

He was not a bad guy, just mis-guided. He was trying to stop another World War after the devastation created by WWI. He believed if Hitler was given what he wanted he would stop his aggression and Europe could remain at peace. He thought this was achieved when he backed down over Hitler's take over of Czeckoslovakia and he declared they had created "Peace in our time"

Chamberlain failed to recognize the fact that Hitler's goal was world domination and that he could not be appeased. Chamberlain's refusal to stand up to Hitler simply put WWII off until 1940 giving Hitler and the German's more time to re-arm making them that much more difficult to defeat.

In hindsight, it would have been much easier to defeat Germany in 1936 or 1937. Instead, the desire to avoid war ended up causing a much more devastating conflict. It can also be argued that standing up to Hitler in the mid '30's would have saved the lives of 6,000,000 Jews.

Answer 2

In considering any western politician on the 1930s it has to be remembered that they had lived through, and often taken part in, WWI. It's not that Chamberlain was good or bad, weak or strong, he was a child of his time, trying desperately not to be the reason why millions of young men died. In fact, WW2 was an entirely different kind of war to WWI, not the least because the Germans had learned the power of tanks, but Chamberlain wasn't to know that. But, in any event, he played little part in the War, dying, as has been said, in 1940.

Answer 3

Good question. If ever there was a case of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" it's poor old Neville Chamberlain.

There is no question that his intent was 'good', but his naivete probably cost Europe, and eventually most of the world, the resulting WW II. had he been more resolute, maybe....just maybe, things might have turned out differently.

Of course we will never know the answer to that, and I would not wish either Neville, or his descendents to have to shoulder all of the blame, his part was relatively small.

Answer 4

He didn't do anything much in WWII, since he died in 1940; but he is often seen as the villain of the pre-war years, since he applied the doctrine of appeasement that allowed Hitler to gain strength in the mid-30s, most famously at the Munich Conference in 1938. While he deserves blame for failing to put Hitler in check, it should be remembered that his attitude about Hitler was common at the time.

Answer 5

British Prime Minister before SIR Winston Churchil.

He received a letter from Hitler in 1938, the general gist of it was "peace in our time".

Whoooops.

Answer 6

I believe George Costanza said it best ,"Chamberlain would have given Hitler all of europe if you would have held hishead over a toilet"

Answer 7

He was a weak guy, in his political dealings with Germany. Had England had a strong leader in office, history may have taken a different course. And weak, in this context, can be considered bad.

Answer 8

He was weak and backed down to Hitler

Answer 9

he was a stupid guy