(Oxlade-Chamberlain and Churchill web image)
Gao Lin/Wen
Rebellion in the Darkest Hour: Assisting Churchill and Saving the Young Man in England is a book that does not pursue long-winded discussions, and the theme is familiar with that of "Chamberlain's Failure and Churchill's Rise to Power". This story and film have been filmed more than one, and related books are full of sweat. But the author of this book, Lynne Olson, not only succeeded in writing new ideas, but also subverted the kind of cognition that most people are familiar with on this issue, so that people who were first covered by Churchill's light and then annihilated by the dust of history slowly surfaced, most of them were played by extras in the movie "The Darkest Hour", and in the ink of this book, they were gradually restored to the image of history, and it was finally the bravery of these people who defeated Chamberlain, although history only remembered Winston Churchill.
One
History remembers churchill only because most people confuse "Chamberlain's downfall" with "the bankruptcy of appeasement." Churchill's victory over Chamberlain and the end of appeasement were one of the most common ideas. But in fact, "Chamberlain's policy" does not equal "appeasement policy", and even "Chamberlain's appeasement policy" is also very far from the "appeasement policy" in people's concepts. Chamberlain did not have until the mid-1930s, as the "crown prince" of the Conservative Party, that he had the opportunity to extend his hand to the Treasury he was in charge of to actively intervene in British foreign policy. By this time, however, the "policy of appeasement" had changed from the traditional "avoidance of war through compromise and appeasement" to "avoiding the immediate outbreak of war as soon as possible through compromise and appeasement" in order to buy time for Britain to rearmament. In order to achieve this, Chamberlain had an urgent problem that had to be solved: with Germany's annexation of Austria in 1938, Hitler showed increasingly eager territorial ambitions for Czechoslovakia and Poland. While Britain had no military obligations to either country, Britain's ally France had military obligations to both countries. If Germany had invaded both countries, Britain might have been drawn into a world war because of France's military obligations to them.
Chamberlain's solution to the problem was to let France and the two countries off the hook as much as possible and to relieve France of its military obligations to them. On the basis of prompting these countries to compromise with Germany, france and their military alliance were transformed into a new order that, including Germany, jointly guaranteed the status quo in Central and Eastern Europe. Achieving this goal requires a resource that Chamberlain does not have, that is, time. Britain did not understand Nazi Germany and Hitler, and building this understanding and trust required a long period of communication and mutual understanding. But Chamberlain did not have such a time, nor did Hitler. In 1937 Chamberlain finally became Prime Minister, and in 1938 he was brought to the brink of war by Hitler's military threat to the Czech Republic.
Chamberlain made his first fatal mistake: without knowing whether Hitler was willing to abide by the agreement, he crossed France, or even took his own foreign minister, and flew to Munich alone to personally preside over the signing of the Munich Agreement. As Prime Minister, he could have avoided diplomatic issues, but he took the initiative to put his prestige on agreements based only on "Mr. Hitler will not renege on his word". When German troops occupied Prague on March 15, 1939, in violation of the agreement, Chamberlain suffered one of the worst defeats of his political career. The result of Hitler tearing up the agreement disgraced Chamberlain. In order to save face, he made a second fatal mistake, taking a 180-degree turn in foreign policy and overturning the "appeasement policy" that he had been vigorously pursuing.
At the heart of the policy of appeasement was to avoid Britain being drawn into a world war by France's military obligations to the Czechs and Poland. The essence of the Munich Agreement was also to allow the Czechs themselves to compromise with Germany, to meet Germany's territorial claims, and to prevent France from fulfilling its military obligations to the Czech Republic.
However, after the great turn, Chamberlain took the initiative to propose to Poland that Britain guarantee Poland's inviolability and voluntarily shouldered the same military obligations to Poland as France. Ironically, when Chamberlain voluntarily declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, he instead waited for France to join Britain in the world war. He tried everything possible to prevent Britain from being drawn into the war by France, but for his own sake he overthrew all previous efforts.
So by the outbreak of the war on September 3, 1939, Chamberlain's entire diplomatic strategy and policy of "buying time" had failed, and the failure was unshirkable, but what was the result? The Chamberlain cabinet made only minor adjustments and became a "wartime cabinet." Churchill and Aiden, who were the most threatening to him, became the defense of Chamberlain's cabinet in parliament after becoming shanghai military ministers; the latter were satisfied with an insignificant "dominion minister" and became silent and no longer criticized the cabinet. Chamberlain's defeat, while leading to a war, cemented his position as never before. Appeasement went bankrupt, but Chamberlain did not step down. This contrast subverts the general perception of this history, while also revealing one of the book's most fascinating questions: Why is it so difficult for a strategically failed, policy-bankrupt prime minister to resign? According to the rules of the 19th century game, a prime minister or minister like Chamberlain may have stepped down several times. But even in the "vote of confidence" that finally determined Chamberlain's fate in May 1940, he still had a majority in Parliament, which means that if Chamberlain decided to ignore the hostility of the House of Commons to him and continue to sit on his prime minister's throne, it would actually be possible.
Two
The "struggle against Chamberlain" was waged by the "backssetters" of the House of Commons, while their "hero" Churchill stood by Chamberlain's side, standing in their "opposite" camp angry and suspicious. With angry, wary eyes, he stared at every "rebel" who was determined to send him to ten Downing Street. They are small relative to the prime minister, ministers, former ministers, "front-seaters" who sit in prominent seats in parliament, but they are also parliamentarians after all. When the authors tell this history from their point of view, they objectively provide a rare perspective to observe the state of British parliamentary politics in the 1930s, which can be described as providing an unusually rich clue to make up for the shortcomings of specialized political history and party history.
First, by the 1930s, the level of development in British parliamentary politics was far lower than one might think. An interesting fact is that the Senate and House of the U.S. Congress provide office space for every member of the U.S. Congress. With the exception of the parliamentary debate phase, lawmakers spend a significant portion of their time in Washington in their own offices, but the British parliament never thought of providing such a service to lawmakers. For British MPs, apart from the House of Commons Chamber, the most important place is not the office but the House of Commons smoking room, as it has the best pubs in all of London (there is no one). Although regulations and bills restricting the sale of spirits have been passed many times in history, the Lower House smoking room has never been restricted by such a decree. Most of the time that MPs spend away from the House of Commons is gathered here: drinking, followed by business talks, making friends, and gossiping.
This is the greatest legacy left by the House of Commons of that old squire era. In an age when the nobles gathered in the House of Lords, their sons, relatives, neighbours and friends gathered in the House of Commons to defend and vote for their interests, the most important thing left for these "gentlemen" gathered in London, apart from defending their common interests with the nobles, was to negotiate business and friendship, and for these tasks to be successfully accomplished, alcoholic beverages were naturally indispensable. Moreover, the era of the squire is actually only a few decades away from the era described in this book. By the 1830s, England was a country where only a few people had the right to vote, and for these voters, the most crucial thing was whether they could defend their own interests, and on this basis, the choice was to consider various nepotism, friendship, or whether the person had a good eloquence, voting for him, whether he could win more recognition for his own claims in the House of Commons. So the House of Commons is actually the stage for the spokesmen of British interest groups. Traditional Tories and Whigs rely on such spokesmen to win votes. The influence, prestige, and relationship background of parliamentarians are the basis for obtaining the necessary votes for the party.
So both the Tories and the Whigs are a party of a small political elite. What really compels them to act to keep up with history is the expansion of suffrage since the 19th century. Britain's electorate soared from one million in the early 19th century to thirty million in 1928. No parliamentarian can guarantee his or her victory in an election by virtue of his personal prestige, prestige, or nepotism. With the exception of a handful of political stars (such as Winston Churchill), no lawmaker can guarantee his election by virtue of charisma rather than a partisan "local electoral association."
By the 1920s, the relationship between British political parties and MPs had reversed. In the 19th century, parliamentarians were the object of partisan struggle. Although there is a "party whip", parliamentarians still have a lot of freedom to debate and vote in parliament, and it is not uncommon for them to run to the "opposite" to take a seat or vote for the "opposite" because they agree with the other party's propositions. But by the 20th century, parliamentarians were increasingly elected on the backing of political parties. Voters are also increasingly inclined to vote for the Conservatives, Labour or Liberals, rather than for a specific MPs. As a result, the political machine of the Conservative Party is getting stronger and stronger, and the freedom of parliamentarians is becoming smaller and smaller. This is evident in this book. "Terrible party whip" Ma Jason's arrogant attitude towards parliamentarians, as soon as a parliamentarian disobeys, there will be questioning and subpoenaing from "local associations". Parliamentary politics in Britain has changed from the fragmentation of a small elite to the modern party politics around universal suffrage.
But this one factor is not enough to explain the strength of Chamberlain, who does have a powerful political machine in the Conservative Party, but not enough to make him invincible. The reason why Chamberlain was still strong enough to gain majority support in the face of all enemies at the last moment was because he had almost an irreplaceable position in the Conservative Party at that time.
At the end of the 19th century, two prominent politicians struggled to keep their party up to date. They are Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. The former was the father of Winston Churchill and the latter was the father of Neville Chamberlain. The Conservatives' Randolph Churchill was constrained by his aristocratic style and did not achieve much really, but Joseph Chamberlain was different, the owner of a Birmingham nail factory, on the one hand, producing the so-called "blood of the Industrial Revolution"—the most basic nails and screws needed by industry. On the other hand, his company is typical of the decline of British manufacturing, with the lowest technical threshold for nails and screws and the highest impact of similar foreign products. At the same time, it is a heavy labor cost enterprise, if the government does not increase investment in welfare, Chamberlain's company must independently bear the welfare costs of employees. If a path can be found that allows the government to bear social welfare without increasing taxes on manufacturing companies, it will increase the income of factory owners like Chamberlain.
So Joseph Chamberlain raised two common voices of manufacturing entrepreneurs who have been hit hard since the end of the 19th century – "tariffs and welfare". He not only found the proposition that best suited his own interests, but also used the management and diligence of a business owner to organize a faction that supported him, that is, the "Unification Party". The Unionist Party was originally a "unityist" in the Liberal Party against the Irish Home Rule Act, and Chamberlain led the "Liberal Unification Faction" to break away from the Liberal Party and eventually join the Conservative Party, and the name of the Conservative Party became the "Conservative Unity Party" because of this alliance. So in fact, the Conservative Party in the early 20th century was the product of the merger of the traditional Conservative Party and Chamberlain's Unification Party.
When this two-in-one party accepted Chamberlain's "tariff" claims and threw itself into the 1906 elections. Although the Conservative Party as a whole suffered a crushing defeat, of the more than one hundred and fifty MPs who were elected, there were as many as 120 "tariff" MPs who supported Chamberlain. There are only about thirty parliamentarians left "conditionally supporting tariffs" and "supporting absolute free trade." Thus, from 1906 onwards, the pro-Chamberlain faction became the largest political force in the Conservative Party. Although Joseph Chamberlain himself withdrew from the political arena because of a stroke, the idea of tariffs and welfare has always been the mainstream of the Conservative Party. Two consecutive generations of Conservative leaders and prime ministers Bona Law and Baldwin in the 20th century were supporters of the tariff movement. Neville Chamberlain, as the son of Joseph Chamberlain, was even more personal in the path of "tariffs and welfare", serving as the "Health Minister" in Baldwin's cabinet in 1924, and became the "National Cabinet" treasurer from 1931, taking advantage of the financial collapse caused by the Great Depression to finally successfully promote the "imperial tariff policy" that had been repeatedly rejected by voters for twenty-five years.
Chamberlain's surname and doorway represent the tradition of the "Unification Party" since Joseph Chamberlain. Politically, it represents the greatest political ideal of these people. As Minister of Health he succeeded in the field of welfare, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer he fulfilled the ideals of his father and brother and established protective tariffs for the British Empire as a whole. When he finally took over at Ten Downing Street, for many Conservative MPs and supporters, it meant victory in a long struggle of more than two decades since Joseph Chamberlain. What Chamberlain gained among these people was not so much "espionage" as "worship." Such Chamberlain is of course invincible.
Three
Why did the unshakable Chamberlain eventually fall? This is closely related to the evolution of the times in the overthrow of Chamberlain.
As mentioned earlier, the Conservative Party by the beginning of the 20th century was actually a "Conservative Unity Party" of the Conservative Party and the "Liberal Unity Faction". Relying on the idea of "tariffs plus welfare", the call of the Unity Party quickly became the mainstream in the Conservative Party. But in fact the conservative parties of the traditional aristocracy still maintain their influence. These were represented by Lord Salisbury and Lord Derby. In 1922, Neville Chamberlain's older brother Austin Chamberlain sat in the position of Leader of the Conservative Party like his younger brother, and it was Lord Salisbury's "rebellious" open letter that set off a "rebellious upsurge" among Conservative MPs and eventually overthrew Austin with a "vote of confidence". This can almost be seen as a rehearsal of Neville Chamberlain's fate. But in this book, Lord Salisbury is another image of caution. Eighteen years ago, the "noble lord" who charged forward and knocked over a Chamberlain, when facing another Chamberlain, seemed a little powerless, and almost at the last moment he reluctantly participated in the "anti-appeasement" movement.
In contrast to the caution of the Cecils (Marquis of Salisbury's surname Cecil) is the radical attitude of the Cavendish family, and the two characters throughout the book, Harold Macmillan and Robert Boothby, are the sons-in-law of the Cavendish family. The title of the Cavendish family was Duke of Devonshire, and the Duke of Devonshire was the traditional "Whig nobility". How did this family change camp to The Conservatives? Of course, together with Joseph Chamberlain, he changed from the Liberal Party to the "Liberal Unity Party" and then to the "Conservative Unity Party". It can be seen that in 1938, not only the political influence of parliamentarians on political parties was declining, but with the realization of equal rights elections for men and women in 1928, even the traditional aristocratic Conservative Party lost the influence needed to actively launch a political movement against "Chamberlain of the Outsiders" as in 1922. They can only watch cautiously as the infighting surrounding Chamberlain's foreign policy breaks out among the conservative mainstream.
This explains why Churchill was so strange in may 1940 when confronted by these opposition opponents who were clearly about to push him to power. Because from Churchill's point of view, these people were almost all Chamberlain's people. In terms of relations with these rebels, Churchill is even far inferior to Anthony Aiden. Aiden had been the recognized leader of these people, and before they despaired of Aiden, almost no one among them really trusted Churchill.
Churchill himself once joked that "it is inevitable that anyone will do such a thing as changing parties once, but if you want to do it twice, you really need to do something real." "Churchill himself happened to be the kind of guy who did it twice, jumping from the Conservatives to the Liberals and from the Liberals back to the Conservatives. This was nothing in the rules of the political game of the 19th century, but in the context of the 20th century when partisans overwhelmed parliamentarians, and in an era when parliamentarians were increasingly being asked to follow the party whip to vote, this experience of repeated jumping was definitely not a plus for Churchill's political future.
So when Churchill saw a group of young parliamentarians who had been enthusiastic about Chamberlain now suddenly turn to support him, and what they used to attack Chamberlain was the defeat of the navy he was in charge of, the feeling of contradiction and suspicion was self-evident. Churchill's firm support for Chamberlain, his sneering at the rebels who supported him, and his encouragement to continue to insist on proving his "loyalty" when Chamberlain's defeat was a foregone conclusion can be explained in this way.
Then it would be very interesting to review the whole process of overthrowing Chamberlain from a factional point of view. Chamberlain's financial and welfare achievements made him the undisputed and irreplaceable head of the Conservative Party. As he became more and more in charge of more power in an attitude of "President of the United States" rather than "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", and more and more frequently and directly interfered in the affairs of other ministers, he began to make inevitable mistakes. To make way for his fiscal policy, he demanded that British foreign policy be committed to avoiding war, not firmly opposing the Nazis at their weakest moments, and watching the rise of Nazi Germany. When the Nazis really rose, he needed to buy further time in order to rearmament and catch up with Germany. These mutually causal errors led to "appeasement," and his suppression of dissent eventually led to infighting among mainstream Conservatives who had been loyal to him. But this infighting failed to win the support of the Liberals and Labor Parties. Because in the eyes of the other side, these Chamberlain rebels are still loyal to the party whip after all, and even if they are extremely angry, they will at most abstain from voting for Chamberlain - such opposition is of no value.
The role of the unobtrusive Lord Salisbury became very interesting, behind him was the aristocratic Conservative Party, which had been working against the Chamberlain family. When he came forward to organize a cross-party committee to oversee the "appeasement policy," he really set off a movement against Chamberlain. Because for Liberal and Labour MPs, Salisbury is the one who is really likely to openly oppose Chamberlain. In this sense, the addition of Lord Salisbury and his committee was the last nail in the coffin for Chamberlain's cabinet. His joining made the opposition finally realize that there was indeed a split in the Conservative Party, and that the angry young MPs were not venting their grievances. With people like Salisbury backed up, they probably won't be satisfied with abstaining. When the time comes, these people may indeed abandon their party leaders and stand "opposite." This opened the way for a final "vote of confidence".
Four
Together, a complex array of factors determined the fate of Chamberlain, Churchill, Aiden, Britain, and the entire world. If the 19th century had been more intense in the House of Commons, Chamberlain would have stepped down long ago, a tougher prime minister would have used a more effective means to stop Hitler, and the fate of the world could have been rewritten.
If Anthony Aiden had come forward to criticize Chamberlain in a braver and more responsible manner, and mainstream Conservatives, led by him, probably abandoned Chamberlain in 1938, Churchill would not have had the opportunity to sit on the throne of party head and prime minister until 1954. In the drama of "pre-war parliamentary politics", there are too many people and too many interests, desires and ideals, colliding with each other, entangled with each other, full of unimaginable uncertainties, but the end is already known.
In an era of fate for Britain and the world, Chamberlain made mistakes, and those who could rival him chose to wait and see, but the group of righteous little people in the book stood up to challenge the unshakable prime minister. They succeeded, but they did too late. At the end of the book, the late Macmillan and Boothby sit together and each murmur , "It's all over." "In their youth, they did what they could, and at that time they still had the strength and the fighting spirit, and they fought for it was still an empire. When the dust settles, the two old men are faced with only the history that has been cast.