Talk:Guilty Men

Frank Owen

The link to Frank Owen directs to a 'wrong' Frank Owen, namely an American baseball player. Norvo 04:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Left Wing Journalists?

Peter Howard was unconventional, but hardly left wing. Norvo 04:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who were the guilty men?

This is a good article but it would be better if it included the list of "guilty men". Unfortunately the Penguin reprint is already hard to get hold of so I'm unable to add the list myself. Marshall46 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Marshall46 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See also

Any particular reason why The bomber will always get through is linked to this article? I mean it's kind of related, but there's a lot of other stuff about the build up to the Second World War that would be more relevant. -- Phil Barker 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True. It is kind of related because the fear of aerial bombardment contributed to the pacifism and appeasement of the 'thirties, but, I agree, there are probably more relevant links. Marshall46 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales

The article says that Guilty Men sold 200,000 copies in a few weeks. I have the 34th impression, printed in 1941, which says on the dust jacket "178,000 COPIES!" Marshall46 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party

I cut this sentence: "Some have queried its exclusive identification of appeasement with the Conservative Party, noting that the Labour Party's pacifist leader George Lansbury (1932–1935) had vehemently opposed re-armament or any use of military force, and that Labour continued to criticize arms spending until 1937." The book includes a powerful attack on Lansbury (quoting Ernest Bevin's famous statement about him hawking his conscience around and asking to be told what to do with it) and criticises Labour pacifism pre-1935. Marshall46 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Royalties

The article says that Beaverbrook "made do with the royalties from Guilty Men" (no source). This is unclear because (a) he was not the author and (b) because we are told later that the authors' agent absconded with the royalties. How could Beaverbrook have got any material benefit from the book? Pelarmian (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if true it needs a citation. But I assumed that it meant that Beaverbrook was (obviously jokingly) implying that he was the author. I looked in vain for some reference to this in Tim Boverie's excellent book, Appeasement.Cross Reference (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guilty Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927121037/http://www.conservativehistory.org.uk/graphics/issue5.pdf to http://www.conservativehistory.org.uk/graphics/issue5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)