points, however, Churchill an Orthodox historian argues that Chamberlain ignored to negotiate with France despite their mistrust and having limited options, only showed that Chamberlain was not trying hard enough and chose to have selected alliances. This greatly undermines him and the Revisionist view as he did not explore all of the solutions or alternatives which were presented in front of him. However overall I believe that Chamberlain was right to champion appeasement as Britain were in no circumstance ready to go to war, and the fact that they had limited options and hardly any allies only strengthened this motivation for appeasement. Post-Revisionist view Chamberlain was viewed in a variety of ways, due to adopting his policy of appeasement. However, post-revisionists, such as Ripsman and Levy argue that Chamberlain adopted appeasement in order to buy time for Britain because the economy was not able to produce rapid rearmament. This was proven from Ripsmans and Levy’s book (Wishful Thinking) which noted the “British economy could not sustain the rapid and extensive rearmament effort” which was supported by the fact that all British leaders recognised that mass rearmament “lacked the economic strength” to make it successful. This was shown by Ripsman and Levy by the economy not having enough skilled workers to produce rapid rearmament, such as from using government statistics they showed that three million people were unemployed which was an indication that due to high unemployment Britain did not have enough skilled workers to get rearmament done therefore pushing Chamberlain to adopt appeasement. Unlike Charmley, Ripsman and Levy tend to focus more on internal problems within Britain which were hindering their chance of pursuing other alternatives, in comparison to Charmley’s a>