Why were we on about Churchill and Chamberlain? I cant remember but its interesting.
Anyway I was going to say NC with his peace in our time stuff was absolutely reflecting the wishes of voters. could you imagine the thought of repeating world 1 one again, with bigger weapons?they absolutely expected to go back into horrific trench warfare and didnt think it would be fast moving mechanised war (as it turned out to be). The peace movement was absolutely huge among normal people in the interwar years.
If it was this policy that finished NC, why didnt he go in 1939? it was the Norway fuck up (with Churchill sending territorials against SS and moutain troops, they walked straight off the ships into captivity without firing a shot) and the beginnings of the end in France that ended him. NC was a honourable man and made the right decision to massively update and overhaul the RAF over the army first.
Despite my thoughts about Churchills shitey strategic decisions, the idea hes responsible for the Bengal famine is absurd, unless you can claim he caused cyclones and encouraged the Japanese to overun Burma(he actually tried to hold Burma at all costs).
Anyway, back to this mess, I'll say it again. Checks and Balances are a pure lie. Where are they? democracy needs a bloody good update much in the style of the RAF circa 1938