Sir: Before Richard Lamb steps in to con- tradict Allan
Massie's excellent piece on 1914, might I write in to support it? My forthcoming book The Turning Point, to be published in the spring by Hodder, provides chapter and verse for the folly of Grey's abandonment of the traditions of conserva- tive foreign policy. I have done my best to stay out of the row over Munich, but Mr Lamb's latest letter (7 November) really demands an answer. Duff Cooper was against Munich, but acknowl- edged that the alternative was a war for which Britain was not ready. It is no use say- ing the Germans weren't either —we were readier than they were in 1940 — but the Anglo-French armies were not as good as the Germans'. Nothing would have changed
LETTERS
that, except perhaps a purge of the British and Frefich general staffs. Stalin had, of course, just done this with his own general staff. Could it be that this is what Mr Lamb refers to when he states that the 'evidence that Russia would have come to the aid of Czechoslovakia is overwhelming'? How? Russian troops would have had to get through Poland and the Poles would not have let them. So just how would the Rus- sians have helped the Czechs? Perhaps Mr Lamb would provide his 'overwhelming evi- dence'?
Chamberlain was right when he stated to his sisters that there was everything to be said for Churchill's plan of the 'grand alliance' — until you examined it. Cham- berlain's real mistake was getting involved in Czechoslovakia at all. This was to repli- cate Grey's mistake in 1914, with the conse- quences Mr Massie so well describes.
The proponents of the policy Mr Lamb preferred got their way, which is why we are where we are today. I hope their faith in the EU turns out better than their previous preferences, but doubt it.
Professor John Charmley
The Retreat, The Street, East Tuddenham, Dereham, Norfolk
Previous page
