In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion [Paperback]

Clement Leibovitz (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 1, 1997

Clement Leibovitz and Alvin Finkel challenge the familiar understanding of Munich as the product of a naive "appeasement" of Nazi appetites. They argue that it was the culmination of cynical collaboration between the Tory government and the Nazis in the 1930s.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Clement Leibovitz, a retired professor in computer services at the University of Alberta, lives in Canada. Alvin Finkel is Professor of History at Athabasca University in Alberta, an open-learning institute. Christopher Hitchens is a regular columnist for The Nation and Vanity Fair.

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Monthly Review Press (January 1, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0853459991
• ISBN-13: 978-0853459996
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,938,028 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

26 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Munich not appeasement! But a 'green light' for aggression!, February 9, 2000

By 

Philip Greenspan - See all my reviews

This review is from: In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (Paperback)

MUNICH. APPEASEMENT. Powerful symbols. Invoked to justify questionable military adventures. What actually happened at Munich?

'In Our Time:The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion'--based on government documents, correspondence, diaries, etc.--shatters the conventional judgment.

There is no doubt that when Hitler first violated a treaty by entering the Rhineland, a firm response would have defeated him. The French were prepared to take action but the British government wouldn't. The Tory government, anxious to eradicate communism, was willing to accommodate Hitler's aggressive appetite in eastern Europe hoping that this would lead to war with the Soviet Union.

Many books I previously read described Hitler as a genius who continually overrode the warnings of his generals. The generals were properly cautious, assuming they would meet opposition. But Hitler was aware that his anti-communism had the approval of the British establishment and that his adventures would be successful.

German opposition forces tried to convince the British, that if they and the French took a firm stance, the German military would overthrow Hitler. Chamberlain rejected their pleas.

Hitler's demands against Czechoslovakia threatened to cause a major war since France had a mutual assistance treaty with the Czechs. To defuse the crisis, Chamberlain traveled to Germany and held three meetings with Hitler. The last one, with France and Italy, produced the Munich Agreement--which sold out a reluctant but consenting Czechoslovakia.

During those meetings, Chamberlain felt he had forged a separate agreement with Hitler-which granted Hitler a "green light" for aggression in central and eastern Europe.

But public opinion in Britain was a major problem that Chamberlain defused by issuing gas masks and calling for the digging of trenches. Hitler was advised to ignore any harsh criticisms; they were made to appease the public.

Munich's lesson (the convention one) is a fraud. Chamberlain knew he was not bringing 'Peace in Our Time'. His performance was a charade to deceive an unsuspecting public. What is the real lesson. Beware of the duplicity of our leaders. Those magical PR icons--Munich, Appeasement, and the newer ones, Humanitarian Intervention, Ethnic Cleansing--should alert us that they are used to get public support for dubious activities.

For history buffs and particularly those interested in World War II, this book is an absolute MUST read.

14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Top-notch; a work of sheer intellectual brillance, November 20, 2002

By 

Karun Mukherji (Calicut,, India) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (Paperback)

Authors have exposed the diabolical nature of British leader Neville Chamberlin.

Firstly ,authors say [correctly]that appeasment was a myth.As early as 1934 British leaders of conservative party had adopted a policy of giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe.In Nov1937, Lord Halifax met Hitler ,told Britain would not oppose if Germany carried out expansionist polices in eastern Europe.Later British ambassador in Berlin Neville Henderson gave similiar assurances to this effect.When Hitler commenced threatning Czchecoslovakia ,under the cover of demanding self- determination for Sudenten Germans ,Chamberlin refused to take action.But refusal was contingent on Germany not attacking the West.In other words, Germany was free to expand towards eastern Europe and Britain would ensure Czeckoslovakia does not stand on the way.

Shockingly ,this was the secret deal Chamberlin made with Hitler at Godesberg prior to Munich confabulation.One is now forced to endorse Soviet leader Stalin's view that West tried to embroil Soviet Union in a war with Nazi Germany

On March 15 ,1939, Nazi Germany swallowed remaining rump of Czeckoslovakia .On March 27, 1939 ,in a speech to House of Commons Chamberlin gave a guarantee to Poland.Later it was told Western democracies by this time realised their folly went to war to stop further German depredations.Authors have shown guarantee to Poland was a sham ,only served as an instrument to deter Germany from attacking the West.


Western democracies ,however,communicated through secret channels that it was prepared to foresake Poland provided Hitler confine his ambitions to eastern Europe.Hostile public opinion forced democracies to start staff talks with Soviet Union .The purpose was to form a collective front to stop Hitler's march to war.But talks dragged on with West showing no willingness to bring it to succeessful a conclusion.

What Soviets wanted from the West was ironclad guarantee.Russians were prepared to commit 100 divisions for defence of Poland.Since Moscow did not share common border with Germany it wanted right of passage for its troops.This obstinate Poles refused to give.Here it must be said Russians were trying 1934 onwards to forge collective security pact with West .Such a pact would have stopped Hitler's Germany on its tracks .Presumably Hitler's regime would have been ousted in a coup or would have resigned. Then course of history would have been different.But British leadership's moral blindness ,hatred for Communism such a splendid opportunity was botched.

Getting back to the point,Moscow talks served in my opinion to put pressure on Germany How? I refer to secret talks between Horace Wilson and Goering's representive Karl Wohltat in London.Germany was told to come to terms, renounce its aggressive designs on western Europe .If not ,Berlin would be assailed on both flanks wih Russia's help.This precisely had been Hitler's nightmare. Unfortunately authors have missed this crucial point.Ultimately Moscow talks failed because West wanted Soviet Union to vouch for Poland's security without giving any reciprocal guarantees to the soviets.This made Soviets suspicious about real motives of Western leaders .The double-dealing led soviets to sign non-aggression pact with Germany.

The Western democracies went to war against Germany because it committed apostasy by courting the Soviet devil.But secret channels remained open.Behind public gaze British leaders stll hoped to resurrect their secret deal this time with moderate Nazis by ousting Hitler from power.

Chamberlin policy boomeranged.Hitler reposed no faith Chamberlin ability to deliver goods.Nazi leader chose to free his rear before attacking Soviet Union.Appeasment policy now lay in tatters.

Appendix section of the book I find it very interesting.Here authors have evaluated ,critically analysed works of other historians on Chamberlin's appeasment policy.Historians-Alan Bullock,AJP Taylor,Donald C. Watt Simon Newman ,Paul Kennedy-have exonerated the British leader of any wrong deeds by projecting him to be apostle of peace. All evidence to the contrary either fudged or ignored Why?They were reluctant to admit that leader of a Western democracy could collaborate with a dictator who was hell-bent on going to war to realise his ambitions.

Such distortion of facts tantamount to pulling wool over the eyes of the public.This book has presented British politicians in the true light.These men instead of stopping Hitler shamelessly connived,collaborated ,co operated with the Nazi leader.Hyocrites,they were parially responsible for the outbreak of World War II and Holocaust that ensued.

The book represents a complete reappraisal of events leading to World War II.For me the facts contained in the book were nothing new.Having read the books of Soviet historians of war [Vladimir Trukhanovsky, Oleg Rzhevsky]I am aware of it.However this may be first time that few people in the West have come to acknowledge this unpalatable truth which for a long time dubbed communist as propaganda.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars WERE CHAMBERLAIN AND HITLER ALLIES?, June 4, 2006

By 

Kenneth Kapel "Leftist American" (Chicago,Il, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (Paperback)

In rehashing the events that the resulted in Hitler's invasion of Poland and the outbreak of WW2 virtually ALL historians(except ultra leftist)have concluded that Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler(the Munich conference)was a result of fuzzy thinking on the part of the Conservative PM,who genuinely desired peace and who didn't realize the madness of Hitler, and "Der Furher's determination for WORLD DOMINATION,and Aryan supremecy.
Authors Clement Leibovitz & Alvin Finkel,after painstaking research, have shown beyond a doubt,at least to this reviewer,that Chamberlain's policy was one that was backed by the British Establishment for ecomonic,political(anti-Communist)and racial reasons,after all the Brits are mostly of Anglo-Saxon stock.The role of the influencial "Cliveden Set"is examined,as is the of record of Lord Lothian(Philip Kerr)who as an influencial "Liberal" Party politician who opposed war, with Hitler, on account that such a war would mean the break-up of the British Empire(he was so right!)Many Tory Party members,Chamberlain's own party,were ardent supports of Hitler and were early to join the "Anglo-German Friedship Society.In fact Hitler greatly admire the British Empire, and why not,isn't that Empire based on Aryan domination?This is an excellent book that should be widely read.it is revisionism,but revisionism is not bad,or good in and of itself,it is good if it leads us closer to the truth,and I believe this book does just that.By knowing the truth we will be better able to make correct decesions,in the future.I cannot praise this book to much.