Convenient re-writing of history there.
Chamberlain was a Conservative.
In the U.S., the Republicans were, for the most part, isolationists who opposed American involvement in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor and were not unappreciative of the heavy hand exercised by Mussolini and Hitler in dealing with the Communists.
Red Tory: Chamberlain was molded in the "progressive" tradition of the early century. Don't get conservatives of that era confused with modern conservatives. Conservatives in pre-WW2 UK were often "progressives" as well. "Progressivism" crossed party lines. They were collectivist, often even colonial, yet pacifist. They had many noble humanrights motives, such as the protection of N.A. natives ... but they were weak when faced with the likes of Adolf. Many admired the Nazis as a matter of fact and subtly supported the fascists in Spain.
As far as American Republicans, most Americans were isolationist going all the way back to the 1700's, with the Democrats as dominated by them as the GOP in the 1930's. It was part of the American tradition that was shattered in WW1 and prior to that in Cuba and the Phillipines ... it was still very active prior to WW2 with millions of Americans believing that strong armed forces spelled aggression and therefore was wrong ... much like the "progressives" of Europe. This mentality still exists to this day to a lesser extent, among all parties, but has found a home in particular among the modern "progressive" class. It pains me to call them liberals ... because liberals they aint.
Commenting by HaloScan
