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 had 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 easern 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 talks.One is now forced to endorse Soviet leader Stalin's view that West tried to embroil Germany and Soviet Union in a war.

On March 15 1939 Nazi Germany swallowed remaining rump of Czeckoslovakia .On March27 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. By this time it came to be known ,according to British intelligence ,that Hitler was making secret preparations to attack 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 confabulations 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.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 propaganda.

A look at the book "In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion" provides an important investigation of what actually was behind the Munich agreement, the so-called "appeasement" of Hitler and related topics. The authors show that British and French leaders were not naïve [weaklings] trying to "appease" Hitler in the interests of world peace. They were his collaborators in attempting to stem the virus of human rights ("bolshevism") from further threatening ruling class privilege in Europe. The "appeasement" concept, the conventional wisdom about how WWII started, the authors note in their conclusion, has been used to try to silence critics of subsequent U.S. military interventions.

The main driving force the authors outline behind this policy of collaboration is anti-communism. The bolshevik virus was said to be behind every effort of workers in Western countries to get more human rights from the ruling classes.

The authors quote from Neville Chamberlain's correpsondence with King Geore VI that his goal during his meetings with Hitler in September 1938 was to reach an "understanding" with Hitler. This understanding hopefully would bring about the "prospect of Germany and England as the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against communism."

The authors quote from the meetings of Hitler and Chamberlain, the notes of the German translator Paul Schmidt. Hitler stated that there should be no conflict between Britain and Germany and that Germany would not stand in the way of British activities outside of Europe and that Britain should not stand in the way of German activities in Central and South-East Europe. The main theme stressed by British officials in the documents quoted by the authors is that it would be allright if the Nazis expanded towards Central and Eastern Europe so long as they did not attack Western Europe and interfere with Britain's sphere of influence. They hoped that the Nazis would eventually make war on the Soviet Union.

What appears to have turned British leaders gradually away from their "appeasement" policy was not Nazi occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia on March 15 1939, for Chamberlain immediately offered excuses for it, but the German cession of the Czech province of Ruthenia to Hungary on March 17. It was expected that the Nazis would merge the Ukranian speaking Ruthenia with Ukranian areas of Poland and create it as a ram with which to attack the Soviet Union and merge them with the Ukraine, the Soviet Union's economically powerful republic. The granting of Ruthenia to Hungary suggested that intelligence reports that Hitler first planned to attack Great Britain and France were accurate. The way was paved for the empowerment of politicians like Churchill, who had long seen Hitler as a threat to the British imperialism. Hitler did not believe that his allies in Britain and France could withstand electoral defeats from Nazi opponents like Churchill and so he felt he had to make his Western flank secure before he went East.

The Chamberlain government continued to have contacts with the Nazis trying to revive the "understanding" that Chamberlain thought he had agreed with Hitler in September 1938. Shortly after Germany gave Ruthenia away, the British and the French offered a unilateral guarantee to Poland, until recently an ally of the Nazis. The authors show that this guarantee was not so much a promise to defend Poland as an effort to enlist the Poles militarily on Hitler's East Flank should he attack Britain and France

The authors quote a meeting during which Chamberlain asked foreign minister George Bonnet wheather France would come to the aid of Russia as called for in its 1935 defense pact with the latter if the Germans went forward with their plan to start a guerilla uprising to in the Ukraine to detach it from Russia. Bonnet reasoned that since such an action by Germany would not be a direct military attack on Russia, France did not have to intervene. Chamberlain was pleased.

The author's focus on the Soviet war on Finland is particularly interesting. Russia attacked Finland on November 30 1939 after Russia, fearing Nazi expansion, offered Finland an exchange of territory which would have given it twice as much as it had given up. Western leaders professed a great deal of horror at Russia's aggression. While Poland was being horribly mauled, France sent a hundred bombers and 50,000 "volunteers" while the British sent 50 bombers to Finland. The authors note that Finland was much admired by Western rightists for it was dominated by its military ruling under a democratic facade. It had a strong fascist movement that was able to get the country's communist party outlawed.

As France was months away from being engulfed by the Nazi darkness, it was making plans with the British to attack the Caucuses and the Ukraine. They justified this on the ground that the Soviets had allied with Germany with their Non-aggression pact of August 1939 and were providing them with economic resources though the authors show that Russia actually provided little economic resources to Germany.

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.