Talk:John Charmley

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of John Charmley be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

This is a little unfair to Charmley (not sure why he hasn't written anything for a decade), not least by quoting criticism at length from a Churchill-enthusiast website, almost to the point of making Charmley seem like a nut. It no longer seems to be on line, but my recollection is that a vigorous debate ensued in which Charmley engaged pretty hard with Langworth's points.

For example, counter-argument to Langworth might run:

Hitler might well have dealt (although we can't of course know for certain)
to talk of "immorality" is not helpful (of course no decent person endorses Nazism but Stalin was pretty much as bad, as was Mao - the West did business with both regimes, and you can be clear that a regime is odious without wishing to fight all-out war against them)
Halifax and the Cabinet most certainly would have backed a compromise peace (it was very much Churchill's personal leadership, backed by Labour and junior ministers, which kept Britain in the war when all seemed lost)
even if Hitler had taken Moscow in winter 1941 large numbers of Axis troops would have been tied down in the East for years, as had happened in 1918 in fact
a non-bankrupt Britain would have trundled on as a major world naval and air power for rather longer than 1956 (talk of "the British Empire" confuses the issue - Indian independence was already on the cards by 1940 but places like India and Australia would have remained allies of a more powerful Britain in a way which they didn't in reality)
to claim that any of this would have left Britain "tied to Hitler" or "undemocratic" is absurd.

And then the counter-counter argument might run that Hitler was a maniac, whose march into Prague six months after Munich proved that he would never keep any treaty, and God help us when he had built atomic V2s etc etc etc.

The End of Glory is also good on other aspects of Churchill's career, eg. lots of detail on the Admiralty and the Dardanelles, on his time as a serious political player under Lloyd George and Baldwin between 1917 and 1929 (he was even tipped as a potential Tory leader when Baldwin lost the election in that year), a period which tends to be neglected in favour of pre-WW1 and post-1930 in most Churchill biographies.

There was quite a bit of discreet praise of Charmley's Churchill trilogy at the time (eg. his 1989 book on Munich is pretty good, stressing how Chamberlain actually seemed to have driven a pretty tough bargain in some of the negotiations, which perhaps shows how myopic politicians can sometimes be), although it is too long ago now to be recalling specific reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]