Guilty Men

by 'Cato'

In his preface to the 1998 reissue, Michael Foot wrote, 'Guilty Men was conceived by three London journalists who had formed the habit of meeting on the roof of the Evening Standard offices in Shoe Lane, Fleet Street, just after the the afternoon paper had been put to bed and, maybe, just before the Two Brewers opened across the road.'The book's genesis and publication could hardly have been swifter. Its writing took four days from the 1st to the 4th June 1940: it was published on the 5th July. It is an angry book, indeed, a devastatingly effective polemic. Its target was the appeasers of the 1930s, the leading culprits being Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax who had left the country so ill-prepared, and who, by their pusillanimity, had emboldened Hitler and Mussolini; and in the case of the last two still favoured some accommodation with the fascist dictators. In today's parlance, it would be called a wake-up call. It was very successful selling about 200,000 copies. Kenneth Morgan, Michael Foot's biographer, describes the book as consisting of 'a series of brief vignettes of key episodes or personalities, the latter invariably foolish or dishonest.' Michael Foot wrote eight of the chapters, the first and most powerful one being on Dunkirk. Although Michael Foot was the main contributor, and the one who suggested 'Cato' as the umbrella pseudonym, the other two, as Michael Foot would be the first to admit, Peter Howard and Frank Own should not be forgotten. Seventy years on, Guilty Men has not lost its readability and power to enrage.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, World War II, Classics

158 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 5, 1940

About the author

'Cato' was a pseudonym of three British authors: Michael Foot (a future Leader of the Labour Party), Frank Owen (a former Liberal MP), and Peter Howard (a Conservative). They wrote one book together:'Guilty Men' (1940).

Reviews

[Eric Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every time I think that the news is awful, that things cannot be worse, I try to imagine what it was like in the spring of 1940. The Germans took basically all of western Europe in a series of lightning strikes, eventually defeating the most powerful military on the continent, the French. The British managed to evacuate hundreds of thousands of their troops from Dunkirk, but just barely. A German invasion of England seemed imminent.

At this dark time, three journalists — including future Labour Party leader Michael Foot — wrote this short book. The ‘guilty men’ of the title are not just the appeasers, above all Chamberlain, but all the other Tory fools who saw no particular need to get Britain ready for the coming war. Their blind overconfidence — believing in the futility of war, in Mr. Hitler’s trustworthiness, in the invincibility of the British empire — led them to do almost nothing to re-arm in time. It was only with Winston Churchill’s arrival at Number 10 that Britain’s real war against Germany began.

At the time, the book was hated by most reviewers. But it was a hugely popular best-seller and I can see why. The case against Chamberlain and his cronies, usually based on their own words, is essentially unanswerable. Yet even today there are people — including some noted historians — who buy into the myth that Britain used the year after the Munich pact, as well as the next eight months of ‘phoney war’, to rearm. They did nothing of the sort. When the British forces were being kicked off the continent it was entirely due to the fact that the Germans too had time to rearm, which they did rather effectively, and their Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were far better equipped and battle-ready than the British forces trapped on that French beach.

Looking back decades later, Michael Foot wrote about the revisionists who were already encouraging a more generous evaluation of Chamberlain. He would have none of it. The old umbrella-carrying fool, with a worthless piece of paper in his hands, proclaiming ‘peace in our time’ when there was no peace — he nearly brought an end to Britain as an independent country. Churchill arrived in the nick of time to prevent a disaster.

There are bits of this hastily-scribbled book that don’t read as well today as they may have in 1940. The comments about Poland, for example, are very unfair to the Poles and inaccurate too. But on the whole, this books and the arguments it makes about appeasement and the need to stand up to bullying dictators is as relevant today as when it was first written.

[Ilya · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title suggests the book is pretty much about pointing out the guilty men who followed the policy of appeasement in the lead up to WWII and lead Britain's defense forces into disrepair, which almost lead them to lose the war. It's funny laughing at the incompetence of other people, but the book is quite biased and i'd like to see the other side to this story

[Pinko Palest · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've always wanted to read this, but I only had the chance recently. Marvellous invective. Those who go on about appeasement today (as in appeasing Sadam, or Milosevic, or Putin, or what have you) should definitely read this

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading it in the current state of affairs makes this book more relevant. A good example of the importance of knowing history to (sometimes trying to) stop it from repeating itself.

Quote from the opening of chapter VII: "A sigh of relief was audible in the country as Mr. Chamberlain succeeded Lord Baldwin in the Premiership in the Spring of 1937. The nation believed that something better must come since there could be nothing worse."

Was very fortunate to read the 16th edition, from August 1940 - one of the oldest physical books I have read :)

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A biting if embellished attack on the lack of preparation made for the opening of the Second World War. Interesting how the key players are framed as 'the cast' - players in the national drama who, to the author(s), certainly did not perform well whatsoever. Each chapter reads like a scene rolling onto the inevitable conclusion and emphasis on the material consequences of the war preparation (or perceived lack thereof), with an apocalyptic conclusion.

[Ian Fryer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating political polemic excoriating the titular 'guilty men' the three authors from across the political spectrum blamed as being primarily responsible for Britain's unpreparedness for war in 1939. Even across all these decades the book comes across as angry and urgent. Guilty Men was a huge seller: it was first published in July 1940 and by copy, April 1942, is the 37th edition.

[JT Pickering · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy read by authors contemporaneous with the actors and actions which lead to WW2. Little to no background on the actors, so the reader must find that information elsewhere. But, a great read that provides voices from that time to provide some triangulation and context for more recent explanations.

[Meganmcglue · Rating 2 out of 5]

should have realised it would be bad when i found out it was written by not one but three men

[Michele · Rating 4 out of 5]

Guilty Men is a polemic; a document that attempts to place blame for the failure of British government in all spheres during the first part of the 20th C. Ramsay Macdonald and Stanley Baldwin took turns being Prime Minister, shuffling their cabinet appointments among a small group of elderly men who were incompetent, stubborn, out of date and lazy. At one point, the two prime ministers created a joint government in which Macdonald took the foreign duties and Baldwin the domestic portion of policy-making. For the most part, both men were useless, as were the men they kept reappointing and moving around like interchangeable parts from one post to another. The worst. men were appointed and re-appointed for a generation, without understanding nor ever actually achieving the changes needed to prepare their country for war. By the time power was passed to Chamberlain, the British people were persuaded that war MUST be avoided at all costs. They approved wholeheartedly of the appeasement policy he pursued - and didn't give a second thought to the fate of Austria or Czechoslovakia. It was only when the Germans invaded Poland that a great attitude change came over the British, top to bottom. But by this time, the incompetent British government had rejected the necessary and inevitable alliance with Russia, and given the unstable and unsavory Polish state a blank check which they couldn't cover. Although it is not an even-handed treatment, it is a superb description of the danger of incompetence or ignorance in government.

[Scott Howe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read for the coming war

This is an amazing book. I didn't know such a book existed. This is a must read for all people.

[Ian McHugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is twenty years since I read this scathing polemic on appeasement and it has lost none of it's vitriol and vigour. I no longer subscribe to the main tenets of the arguments offered by Messrs. Howard, Owen and Foot but, since I've recently been teaching appeasement again after long hiatus, it has been brilliant to revisit the argument and wince at the inadequacies of the Chamberlain government. The chapter on Sir Thomas Inskip becoming Minister of Defence made me laugh out loud with it's spectacularly erudite demolition and use of contemporaneous quotations to describe the appointment - Inskip is likened to Caligula's horse.
A. J. P. Taylor and R. A. C. Parker later wrote much more nuanced discussions of the appeasement era and gave Chamberlain (and Baldwin and MacDonald) much more credit and understanding than 'Cato' ever did BUT it is worth reading this book to understand the desperation of Britain in the Summer of 1940 and the relief with which Chamberlain's resignation had brought. The arguments presented here do not stand some of the tests of historical scholarship but the passion with which they are presented and the damning nature of some of the evidence means greater defences to the reputation of the "Guilty Men" have to be made by historians as a result.