He was replaced by Churchill in May 1940 – thank God!
Rhian,
Did you think about this before blurting it out ?

Indyvidual

Yes I did think about it. Every credible war historian I know thinks that Churchill made a better wartime leader than Chamberlain, and almost every European I know is glad that Hitler was defeated in WW2.

There are some people who think the Munich agreement was a good idea at the time, and that Chamberlain was unfairly maligned for his policy of appeasement before the war. But once Britain declared war – under Chamberlain’s leadership – it needed someone competent to conduct it. Churchill had his faults, and maybe someone else would have been a better leader, but Chamberlain was not that person.

But once Britain declared war
Rhian,
i wasn't around then to speak from personal experience but I can't shake the feeling that that was the start of WW2 not the invasion of Poland !
Going by what we've seen since Japan appears to be the only eventual winner. Germany has gone totally stupid as has just about all the western World.
And, America ? Well, there's really nothing left to say at this stage. After January 20 will show what they're at. MAGA should be MAG because I can't see the term "Again" as valid !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Going back to the source documentation to determine the facts.

Are the views of the historians more a matter of 20/20 hindsight?

It seems that Churchill and Chamberlain had a relationship similar to Beasley and Rudd in the ALP. Chamberlain early had an excellent reputation of getting things done. Chamberlain seemingly had issues trusting his critical foreign minister Eden and seems to have been hedging his bets with Churchill.

In a sense perhaps none of the players were bad, but perhaps a better overview and understanding of the motivations of the players would have produced a different result.

Some of the players like Disraeli weren't even in the room at the time, but strangely still managed to influence the outcome.

A thinking politician is branded a dictator & parasitic politicians call themselves leaders !

Sending Aussie kids off to enforce some fake peace that the bureaucrats in the UN had cobbled together. What could go wrong?

UN peacekeepers are always a failure. Always. They are never in sufficient numbers to deter a determined foe and never motivated enough to do so even if they had the numbers and support. Which they don't. We need look no further than southern Lebanon where the UN got an agreement from the reluctant Israelis for peace in return for promises that the UN would send forces into Lebanon to stop Hezbullah from reoccupying the region and remilitarising it.

But that force was simply ignored by Hezbullah who slowly re-established their forces and bases in the region supposedly protected by the UN while the UN looked on passively.

But there is no way Aussie kids should be sent to defend absurd 'peace' agreements made by people who don't actually have a stake in the outcome.