memory” he is talking about himself, as Colvin had been a Journalist for the News
Chronicle reporting from Berlin in the lead up to the war. Colvin believes that these
papers will be of particular interest to those who experienced these events, as it will
give a fuller picture of the events to these people. Those who have the benefit of
“human memory”, Colvin believes, have an advantage over the later historians who
will study these papers, as they could not have as good an understanding of the events
as they have not experienced them first hand. Although Colvin does not mention how
this experience can cloud the vision of a critical analysis of the Chamberlain
government.
In The Chamberlain Cabinet, Colvin uses the 1967 act to confirm the orthodox
view of Chamberlain and appeasement that had been put forward by Cato and many
others. Namely, that appeasement was a misguided policy. Colvin believes that
Czechoslovakia should never have been surrendered to Germany and that the
government failed to rearm in time. He also accuses Chamberlain of being an
autocrat, focusing on his domination over the cabinet and how he would repeatedly
bypass the cabinet. According to Colvin, two and a half years of cabinet meetings
never altered his mind on the subject of appeasement. He would only take advice off
those who shared his outlook.
Colvin’s historical judgement can be limited by the fact he had close experience
of the events he was writing about. Unlike many of the writers who were using the
public records to write about the Chamberlain government, Colvin had lived through
the 1930s and lacked the youth that freed the other writers of the prejudices that he
had.
.
