Chamberlain hoped to ‘avoid worst' as Second World War loomed
Neville Chamberlain wrote 'I still hope we may avoid the worst' six days before the start of the Second World War, a letter has revealed.
The former prime minister is infamous for his failed appeasement policy, which saw him offer Adolf Hitler numerous concessions to try to avoid war.
Now a newly discovered letter suggests he clung on to the hope his strategy would pay off up until the moment Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1 1939.
Writing to Captain William Brass, the Conservative MP, on Aug 26 1939, he said: 'I still hope we may avoid the worst, but if it comes we are thank God prepared for it.'
Chamberlain's confidence in Britain's readiness for war would prove to be misplaced as within nine months the Nazis had captured swathes of Europe. More than 330,000 British Expeditionary Force troops had to be hastily evacuated at Dunkirk between May 26 and June 4 1940, to enable Britain to 'fight another day'.
The day before Chamberlain's hopeful note, however, Britain had signed the Anglo-Polish military alliance, promising to support Poland if its independence was threatened.
Hitler had originally scheduled his invasion of Poland for Aug 26, but when news of the Anglo-Polish pact reached Berlin, he temporarily postponed the attack by six days.
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement saw Britain make no response to Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938, a move Winston Churchill warned at the time was a mistake. During a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said: 'The gravity of the annexation of Austria cannot be exaggerated.'
Hitler quickly moved on to trying to control the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and by Sept 1928 Chamberlain had flown to Hitler's holiday home to negotiate in person, to no avail.
Chamberlain said at the time: 'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.'
The Munich agreement saw Chamberlain sign over the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany from Oct 1 1938, in exchange for Hitler giving up on plans for further expansion across Europe. Churchill called it a 'total and unmitigated defeat' and it failed to stop Nazi Germany annexing more Czech land, including Prague, and launching an invasion of Poland – which finally sparked war.
Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned as prime minister in May 1940, when Churchill stepped up to lead the nation.
The one-page letter, on 10 Downing Street letterhead and dated Aug 26 1939, has emerged for sale at RR Auction in Boston, US.
It is tipped to fetch $20,000 (£15,000) because of its historical significance.
An RR Auction spokesman said: 'Behind the scenes, British diplomats were still scrambling to avert war. Chamberlain hoped that deterrence, through strong alliances and military mobilisation, might still dissuade Hitler.
'At the same time, Britain was accelerating preparations – air raid precautions were being implemented across cities, reservists were being called up, and public morale was being steeled for the possibility of conflict.
'Thus Britain found itself in a state of grim resolve: committed to defending Poland, preparing for war, yet still clinging to fragile hopes that Hitler might yet be deterred.
'Within a week, however, those hopes would be extinguished as Germany launched its invasion of Poland on September 1.'
The sale takes place on Wednesday.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Olcott announces reelection bid
State Rep. Mike Olcott, R-Aledo, announced his intent for reelection this week. Olcott, who defeated Glenn Rogers in the 2024 MarchGOP primary, lauded his first legislative session of 'hard-fought wins for conservatives' and battles still on the horizon. 'Serving the people of District 60 is an honor I don't take lightly,' Olcott said. 'Voters sent me to deliver on the Republican Party platform, take on the Austin establishment, and follow through on the conservative priorities we campaigned on. This session, we stood our ground and made meaningful progress on several Republican priorities — but Texans didn't send us to Austin to do half the job.' Olcott noted some important victories, including cleaning up state voter rolls, prohibiting sexually explicit materials in schools, and banning foreign ownership of Texas land. 'But we also saw where the Austin swamp dug in its heels—and where we have to push harder,' he said. 'The people of this district deserve a strong conservative representative who doesn't fold under pressure. I'm running again to keep fighting for the conservative reforms I was sent to deliver.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Island MPs share concern over Assisted Dying Bill after House of Commons vote
THE Isle of Wight MPs have expressed concern over the passing of the Assisted Dying Bill. The bill, which was backed by a majority of MPs, allows terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents about the safety of the legislation, the bill took another step in the parliamentary process after being approved by 314 votes to 291 in the House of Commons yesterday (Friday). Labour's Isle of Wight West MP, Richard Quigley, consistently voted against the bill at every stage. Read more: Following the news of its passing, Richard said: "This bill was always going to be emotional, but it was never about winning or losing, but having the chance to debate. "We have done that and the bill has now passed. "My opposition is based on the belief the safeguards, particularly around the so-called 'anorexia loophole,' are not robust or comprehensive enough." He urged the House of Lords to apply "rigorous scrutiny" to the bill as it progresses. Richard stressed the importance of examining every aspect of its implementation, paying close attention to the risks and unresolved unintended consequences. The Isle of Wight East MP, Joe Robertson, also voted against the bill. He shared his concerns, saying: "I voted against the Assisted Dying Bill — not because I am against the principle of wanting to relieve suffering, but because there are too many loopholes, too few safeguards and potential for unintended consequences." Joe, with great experience in the legal profession, criticised amendments made to the bill since the last vote — particularly the replacement of a role for a High Court judge with a 'panel' of professionals, with no power to summon witnesses. He said: "It means judges can decide whether a child has been coerced into wanting to spend time with only one parent (in divorce proceedings), but not whether a grandparent has been coerced into wanting to end their life (under assisted dying laws). "As a former family lawyer, I find this both perverse and dangerous." The concerns raised by both MPs reflect the apprehensions of a significant number of opponents who believe the bill was rushed through without adequate consideration of the potential risks. The bill will now move to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Assisted dying – medical anthropolgist on the complex practical and ethical road ahead
The House of Commons narrowly passed the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill on June 20, a significant step toward legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. The bill must still pass through the House of Lords before it can become law. So far, the debate has centred on a key question: should people already facing a terminal prognosis have the legal right to choose when to end their lives? The discussions, both in Parliament and among the wider public, have often focused on personal stories of dying – some shared as examples of a 'good' death, others as cautionary tales of suffering. When speaking to the BBC after the bill passed, MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the legislation, described the current situation as a 'failing status quo.' She argued that the law must change to offer more control and compassion at the end of life. More than 530,000 people die in England each year, and it's estimated that around 90% of them could benefit from palliative care. Yet many are still dying in pain, with thousands experiencing unmet needs in their final months. Some supporters of the bill argue that access to assisted dying could offer an escape from anticipated suffering and loss of dignity, especially when palliative care falls short. The concept of a 'good' death already shapes the country's end-of-life care policy. Current practice encourages patient choice, comfort and dignity usually guided by the question: what matters most to you? Through advance care planning, patients can express preferences for their care, such as refusing resuscitation or declining further treatment. But these choices are usually framed in terms of what not to do. Assisted dying, by contrast, introduces a new ethical dimension: it's not about withholding treatment, but about actively intervening to end life. Over the past 15 years of conducting ethnographic research on end-of-life care in England, I've seen just how deeply people are affected when asked to contemplate their future – or the future of someone they love. Read more: Some patients are decisive: they know what they don't want, and they say so clearly. Others apologise for being a burden. Some find it too difficult to plan at all. In fact, fewer than 3% of UK adults have documented advance care plans. Clinicians, too, face challenges. I've seen doctors wish patients would recognise when treatment has become futile – and patients, in turn, hope doctors will take the decision to 'just stop'. There can be deep mistrust, with some fearing they'll be 'given up on'. These tensions are unlikely to disappear if assisted dying is legalised; in fact, they may become more pronounced. In England, the legal definition of 'terminal illness' is a life expectancy of six months or less, and that's the threshold used in this bill. It excludes people with incurable but long-term conditions who may be suffering, but aren't likely to die within half a year. This six-month cut-off also assumes that doctors can accurately predict how long someone has left. But Marie Curie, the end of life charity, called that definition 'outdated' and 'arbitrary,' highlighting how it fails to reflect clinical reality. Read more: More recently, research examining nearly 100,000 patient records from London found that prognosis is least reliable when predicting survival over the 'weeks to months' time-frame – exactly the bracket covered by the bill. Doctors are more confident estimating if someone has less than two weeks or more than a year. Anything in between is often described, quite literally, as 'the length of a piece of string'. The bill's passage in the Commons reflects a growing desire to give people more choice, control and clarity at the end of life. For many, it marks a long-overdue recognition of both suffering and the right to self-determination. Yet while the vote signals strong support for greater autonomy in dying, the everyday realities of predicting prognosis and navigating complex end-of-life decisions remain uncertain. The practical and ethical challenges are far from resolved. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Erica Borgstrom receives/has received funding for her research from the National Institute of Health Research, the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council, Marie Curie, the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness, NHS England & NHS Innovation, and End of Life Doula UK.
