-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
A young reporter who had just begun work for the Sunday TIMES, London said that in 1939 "taxi-cab drivers, waiters and porters went about their work as though they were oblivious to the fact that soon they would be caught up in one of the greatest storms the world had ever known. The most you could get out of anyone was a short comment such as 'things aren't too bright, are they?' and you suddenly felt guilty of bad taste for having referred to it."
But there were a few troubled men, politicians who were battling ambition versus conscience, challenging their government, their friends, their party loyalty, the press to do the unthinkable, to oust their prime minister, to open the eyes of their countrymen to the fact that Great Britain's armed forces were undermanned, ill equipped and badly organized to face a deadly enemy.
The prime minister had just adjourned Parliament for two months and gone salmon fishing and the young men were appalled.
One young rebel said "No government can change men's souls; the souls of men change governments."
THESE YOUNG MEN ARE FASCINATING, COME READ AND DISCUSS THE BOOK WITH US.
-
Ella, I am so looking forward to this discussion! The time period between WWI, and WWII, fascinates me. I hope it will give me more awareness of England prior to the second war. Churchill certainly wasn't a young man at that time. I thank God, he was able to lead the Brits in WWII.
Sheila
-
Hi Sheila. I know you like history as I do and this is not, particularly, a history of Churchill; although, of course, he does come into play at times. It is the story of the young men who did not like the direction their country was going in and although doing it took a lot of courage, at times divisiveness between them, they decided to change it. It's a good political history of England during the decade of the thirties leading into, of course, WWII.
-
Thanks, Ella. It surely sounds interesting. I look forward to learning how these young men, helped put Churchill in as P.M.
I watched a program on the History, or the Military channel, and Churchill was a featured player. To my surprise, it said that Winnie was 60 years old in 1939. So, he was certainly full of p and v, at that age. By the time WWII was ended, he would have been 66. It seems to me that he continued to be quite active, until his death.
Sheila
-
Sheila: what were you thinking? 60 isn't old. Wish I was 60 again! ;)
I'm looking forward to this discussion: it sounds fascinating!
-
I'm with you too. The time and place interest me, and I'd love to talk about it with all of you.
-
I will be here.
-
Yes, JoanK, sixty does seem young to me, at my present age of 75. But, sixty seems to be too old to lead a WW. By sixty I was slowing down some.
Sheila
-
HELLO JOANK, PATH AND FRYBABE!
Am so happy you are interested in discussing the book. Is it readily available in your libraries or are you buying it?
I tried to find a biography of Neville Chamberlain, who is the eldest of our group and the man who looms the largest in the history of England during this period. There are a number of books in my library but am not sure they are what I am looking for. Any ideas?
-
Sheila: I'm 75 too! Just 3 weeks into my 76th year so I'm slowly getting used to it.
I'll be here. When will the discussion take place? The book is waiting for me at the library.
-
I guess PatH and I are the senior stateswomen in the group. We're 76. But we'll be glad to inform you young things.
-
HAHAHAAAAAaaaa.
I will inform you JOANK AND PATH as I am 81 and was in junior high when WWII began. I later married a veteran of that war, wonderful guy, who died 6 years ago.
Now that we are all acquainted may I say the discussion does not start until April lst, or should we say April 2nd and miss the fool?
Don't read very far ahead, you will forget it all by then!
-
Thank you Ella for organizing the discussion of this excellent book on the 1939 - 40 political events in the UK that led some six years later to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It is an Interesting book about events that many of us as junior high or high school students remember. In my case I was beginning my last year in Junior high school. I had received a short wave radio as a gift during the 1939 Xmas and followed the August crisis by listening to the BBC and even Radio Berlin. I also remember waking up on the morning of Sept 3rd hearing a newsboy from the street calling “Extra, Extra, England and France Declare war on Germany.” I was in my bed room in a south side San Antonio residence. Both of the San Antonio Newspapers published Extras and were hawking them down the streets in our residential area. There was another extra in the early morning May 10, 1940 when Germany invaded France and Churchill became the Prime Minister. I became an eager follower of all the subsequent WW II new events until I graduated from high school in 1944 and joined the navy a few days before my 18th birthday in Oct 1944
Our Book, by Lynne Olson, is an interesting, easy to read book. I think it will make a fine discussion. Ella and I invite all of you to join the discussion which will run through April
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchurchill.htm Click the preceding URL for an excellent short biography of Winston Churchill. Actually Winston Churchill was born Nov 30. 1874 making him near 65 years old when WW II began and past 65 when he assumed the Prime Minister post on May 10, 1940
-
I just purchased a copy of this book. Neither library in my area had it.
Can't wait to start it. Have had it on my TBR list for ages.
Marj
-
OH, HERE'S HAROLD! AM SO HAPPY TO SEE YOU!
Let's not say another word about who is the eldest, just be glad we can get together online to discuss a period of history that is not too distant! The 20th century had its heroes and its villains and this book has tales of both; however, it has individual stories, stories of people that never made the news but inflluenced the outcome of that terrible world war.
There are those that say we shall never see the likes of such a war again; probably true. Hundreds of bombers in the air , hundreds of tanks facing each on the battlefield, thousands of men marching toward the enemy. For such a war to happen you must have like armies; do you foresee such a war again?
-
HELLO MARJ!
Good, so happy to have you joining us. It is March 3rd already and winter, hopefully, will cease its grip on us, leave us alone, please. It's been a very difficult one!
-
Hello, Harold! Good to see you here.
-
"do you foresee such a war again? "
No. The choices now seem to be either nuclear war, or relatively small-scale wars (in geography, if not in people killed) and wars against insurgants.
-
I don't want to start an early discussion but the following link is to the Wikdipedia Biographical Sketch of Neville Chamberland. It mayt be of interest as a supplement our book's material on Churchill's predecessor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
d
-
Isn't he nice looking - all dressed up in that picture, Harold! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
There are many pictures of the young rebels in our book which we will discuss when we get into it! All fine looking men and many women, too.
We musn't leave out the women, they are part of this troublesome group!
-
Re: Ella's comment, "Isn't he nice looking - all dressed up in that picture, Harold?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
I hadn't really noted Neville Chamberlain's Picture in my post yesterday, but Ella your are right, his dress is immaculate. I know the social dress code of the day required a well defined proper dress for many specific social occasions. I wonder what social event this particular dress was for. In any case the PM considered it appropriate for his historical legacy.
-
Someday, HAROLD, I intend to read more about Neville Chamberlain. Our book discusses just one period in his life but there is some interesting history here. I gather he was not in WWI? He would have been too old, am I correct?
At the B&N site there is a new one just published but, goodness, $25 for a copy and no used ones right now. My library does not have a good selection. What I would like is a biograpy; not a book covering just one period of the man's life. Apparently he was a very, very stubborn man that could hate with a passion and act upon that emotion.
This sort of personality could be good or bad, I suppose, in a prime minister or president, I don't know! We've had some very strong presidents.
The fact of being a veteran of war, WWI, looms as a large part in the story of these young rebels, but I don't want to go into that very deeply right now. It's fascinating to contemplate, though, and certainly there are parallels in our own country's history with veterans.
-
I am confused. Is Troublesome Young men the book discussion for April (like The Book Thief for March), or is it a different discussion? I don't remember voting on it.
Sally
-
Hi Sally! Yes, TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN is scheduled for discussion for April.
It was not voted on. In the past, fiction has been voted on as we had a selection just about every month. Nonfiction is not as popular with participants and is just offered 2-3 times a year when a DL finds a good book to discuss.
Do you think there are enough popular nonfiction titles to have a vote on them.
-
Ella, thanks for your reply. I do not care for non-fiction (with a few exceptions). I read it (with much protest and mental grumbling) when my ftf book club selects a nonfiction for one of the discussions and I must admit that a couple of them have turned out to be favorite books of mine. However, its not my genre of choice.
Sally
-
Yes, I understand that, Sally. There are people, like myself, that prefer nonfiction and others prefer fiction and, thank goodness, both are being authored and published and filling up the libraries and bookshelves everywhere.
-
Hi all, I just noticed this book is featured for April. I read it a while ago and found it really fascinating, especially with my preconceived idea that Churchill was the driving force behind the development of the British resistance to Hitler.
-
In any case we are finding from reading this book that Churchill was not the only person active in 1930's UK government who opposed Hitler.
-
DANA: WELCOME!
-
May I join this discussion even if just as a lurker.
I have always loved Winston Churchill.
When I last visited England I meant to visit his home at Chartwell. However I was not in control of things then. Some other force seemed to be in control. My late husband and I were going to visit it on the morning before we boarded the plane for home. We did go there but found that it was closed. It is closed on Saturdays. That happened 7 years ago. I thought for awhile that I would go back sometime and finish my unfinished business there but now since I am now so much older I doubt that will ever happen. My eyes have also steadily deteriorated since that time so I dont think I will ever see it now. The first time that I visited England many years ago, the first place that they took us to visit was Churchill's grave site.
I would really like to join this discussion but I will not be able to read the book because it is not available on Kindle and I cannot find it even in large print or any audio form. I guess I will just lurk and read along to see what you all have to say.
Joan Grimes
-
AND I ADD ANOTHER WELCOME FOR DANA! We will look forward to your comments in April!
And JOAN! Of course, of course. Delighted. I'm a Churchill fan also and on my one trip to England I visited his war rooms deep underground and can't believe how small they were, maps everywhere. Fascinating to be that close to the man though.
-
Chartwell, Churchill's beloved home.
http://www.places-to-go.org.uk/Chartwell.htm
I think both Harold and I have stated this before; however I repeat that this is not a book about Churchill, not a biography of the man. It is the story of the young men in Parliament who saw the danger that England was in during the decade of the 1930's, particularly the later years, and worked to alleviate what could have been a diastrous defeat for Great Britain and a triumph for Adolf Hitler.
-
What lovely gardens, Ella.
-
Yes Ella, I visited those war rooms deep underground also. I understand that this book is not a biography of Churchill and I will hang out here and read the posts and see what I can learn about these Troublesome Young Men if you and Harold will allow that. I am looking forward to learning abought them. I am a lover of history.
Joan Grimes
-
Hi, Joan it's good to feel you will be with us, posting or not.
Welcome, Dana, it's good to see you.
My one visit to Churchill properties was to Blenheim, where, in the water meadow, I found the only four-leafed clover I've ever found.
-
Thank you for your welcomes. I look forward to discussuing this book. I am Scottish (half!), and Harold McMillan was the PM when I was a teenager over there. I never realised how interesting he was till I read this book, associating him mainly with the Christine Keeler scandal which happened when he was PM, and the wind of change speech about the countries in Africa becoming independent.
Its nice to see a non fiction book up for discussion. As I grow older I find I am reading more and more biography and history and less and less fiction.
-
Thanks for the welcome message PatH. You will know that I am here eventhough I will not be posting.
Hi Dana, good to meet you here.
If I remember correctly I once found a four leaf clover on the grounds of Blenhiem, also. One of he main things I remember about Blemhiem was trying to walk on the grounds without stepping in sheep manure. That was an impossible thing to do. The Stately home there is magnificent. back to my place in the corner now.
-
I just scrolled through the 37 posts above that have been made to this board. According to my count we have a total of 10 readers who have expressed an interest in this discussion. These include Serenesheila, Joan K, PatH, Frybabe, Mrssherlock, Majiifay, Dana, and Joangrimes. A hardy welcome to all of you! And JoanG of course you are welcome to audit in the background. And please when you are inclined feel free to post your observation based on the other posts and your past experience.
With Ella and myself we will have some 10 participants. This should make a decent sized group, but there is certainly room for more. Any addition readers out there are welcome The book should be available at most large and many middle sized library. Also there is still time to order it paperback or hard cover from your favorite book store . The Amazon and Barnes and Noble purchase links are given below.
Barnes & Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Troublesome-Young-Men/Lynne-Olson/e/9780374531331/?itm=1
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Young-Men-Brought-Churchill/dp/0374531331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268064135&sr=1-1
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Young-Men-Brought-Churchill/dp/0374531331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268064135&sr=1-1
-
hey there
I am hoping to be included in the discussion of the book as well, my first really online. I am sending for my copy from Amazon, and I know a number of spots we put into on the way home have internet...
what is the timeline for the book's discussion or is its duration paced by the group.
Am looking forward to getting my hands on the book.
Deb
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com)
and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi, DEB! Your first book discussion online - what a treat for you, well, I hope it is! You are traveling by a motor vehicle and staying in campgrounds? Oh, we did that a few years ago, way before the advent of the internet.
I hope you find internet service available; if not, be assured you can catch with us. We take a month - a whole month - to discuss a book. The discussion schedule will be posted under the picture of the cover in the heading above. We take a few chapters a week.
So happy to welcome you!
-
"You have always been most kind to those of us who are ordinarily classed merely as troublesome young men." Harold Macmillan to Winston Churchill, January 1928
Where the author got the title for the book.
And I thought DANA, particularly, might be interested in the quote.
-
Bookad you are very welcome toJoin our April discussion of "Troublesome Young Men." We look forward to your active participation.. I seem to have had trouble counting the number of participants this morning. Actually there were 10 including Ella and myself. With Bookad the count now stands at 11. Anybody else?
BooKad, our discussions generally run for a full months with maybe another few days or a week for final conclusion comments by all.
-
DEB WELCOME, WELCOME!
My only contact with Churchill was when I toured the Queen Mary (ocean liner). We were shown a cabin where he stayed and I made a point of sitting at his desk.
I know very little of this period of time in England (we are reading about the same period in Germany in our March discussion of the Book Thief).
-
Amazing isn't it, JOANK. And no one planned that we would be discussing books about the same period of history. THE BOOK THIEF about Germany (fiction); our book about England. However, when we discuss our book in April we will be talking about America also during this period. I am so looking forward to it!
-
I checked out the book this afternoon from the library. Will try to join your discussion.
-
Have to come out of my corner and speak but not about the book but to let Everyone know my good news for the day...My Granddaughter was accepted to Medical School today. I may never come back to earth after this news...She will be attending the Medical School of West Virginia which is located in Lewisburg West Virginia. This is near the famous resort area of Greenbrier where the famous secret bunker for US Presidents is supposed to be located.Joan Grimes
-
Churchill is an amazing person and such good fortune that he was in the place as Prime Minister during the period of history when he was
--there is a picture in the Orillia Legion with President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, & William Stevenson---(W. Stevenson was an amazing Canadian **book written by him titled 'Intrepid'**about his involvement with undercover work in world war 2)--between that book & 'Bodyguard of Lies', it is amazing what can be done under extreme desperate circumstances
-I also have 5 in a series of books (there are more than 5 in the series) written by Churchill about the war & his slant on what happened, have not got around to those yet; so many books so little time scenario
--what really intrigues me is this amazing man, who was so important to the war & his battle with depression, I think he called
it 'his black dog', and it really came back to haunt him following all the turmoil of the war
Deb
-
I know I've been to Lewisburg, WVA, but can't quite place it. Is the main University of West Virginia also located there?
-
JoanG, I congratulated you elsewhere, but didn't know where your granddaughter was going. That's incredibly beautiful countryside, not that she'll be able to look up from her books much. You said elsewhere that she wants to be a pediatrician. That's got to be one of the best possible specialties--getting young lives off to a good start.
Thanks for sharing your joy with us.
-
I, too, want to congratulate JOANG and her granddaughter. Wonderful.
And you brought up Greenbrier, W.VA; the resort was featured in our paper not long ago. They are attempting to lure middle-class Americans to what has been certainly a hotel for the privileged, the politicians and "those-in-the-know." Maybe all those wealthy people have found a new gathering hole? The article told how much the tour though the bunker was and now I can't remember. Was it $25 or more?
-
Congrats on your granddaugher, Joan. She won't regret it, its a great profession because once you get your MD you can do anything from patient care to administration, to public health, you name it. I started out doing obgyn, switched to psychiatry, ended in administration with a part time career now as a surveyor. I'd do it all again !
Speaking of Churchill, it's interesting how so many Americans think he's great, yet he has never been so widely admired in the UK. He was rapidly kicked out of power after the war, looked down on as a turncoat in the 20s, who "crossed the floor" (from liberal to conservative) for his own advantage, ordered troops to fire on striking miners and believed in the antiquated glory of Empire and was responsible for major loss of life in the Dardanelles
-
You're right, of course, DANA. When most of us think of Churchill it is in terms of WWII, but that is just a few short years of his life and if you are an American we think of Churchill, FDR and Stalin together; quite a few dramatic war years in which so many gave their lives that we may have ours.
-
I believe that we Americans love him because his mother was an was an American and we feel that he is part ours. Just my humble opinion. There are many things that he did that I did not like but I still love him. I read a non fiction book about how he ordered the British navy to push the French army of the ships and back into the sea. According to that account the French Army could have been brought to England and kept fighting from there and France would not have had to surrender to Germany. It was a fascinating account. I don't remember the author's name but he was a respected historian. I wish I knew where my copy of the book is but I don't. I would really like to look it up but right now I am not in a condition physically to go through my many books. Of course there is a well known hate relationship between the British and the French. Some fascinating history to study there also. I love history.
-
I do want to thank all of you who congratulated me for my granddaughter being accepted into med school. She is a special young lady and really deserves to be able to accomplish her goals. I am really proud of her as you can tell. sometime when I am able I will show you a photo of her. She described the area in which the School is located to me. Pat H., She says it is and area that reminds her of the country side in Virginia around Washington and Lee. Joan K. the Med school is down the road several miles from the regular University. Several miles down the road from the Med school is Greenbrier, the bunker for presidents. Seems to be an interesting area to visit. Maybe I will be able to do that sometime. Joan Grimes
-
I have been reading all the posts regarding "Troublesome Young Men" and find the entries interesting. Will try to get a copy and read before April. So many things to ponder. Later.
Another Alabamian.
-
DIXIEROSE: WELCOME WELCOME!!
-
Ah, here you are! I've been watching for a link to this site. My thanks
to BookBytes. I'm looking forward to reading the book and the posts.
-
I've started reading "Troublesome Young Men". Interesting.
-
hi there
my book arrived in the mail today, looking forward to reading it!
I knew that Churchill followed Prime Minister Chamberlain, but didn't realize
there was anything other than an election behind everything--I was so impressed with
Churchill after reading 'Bodyguard of Lies'; scary to think how things might have turned out if
Chamberlain had remained the Prime Minister!!
Deb
-
My book arrived yesterday. Looking forward to the discussion.
-
Actually the delaying tactics of Chamberlain gave Britain time to rearm. It was in no shape militarily to go to war any earlier.
-
Thanks, DANA, for the comment.
We will start discussing the book on April lst and be assured that your statement is one we will be debating; there are differing points of view on that subject and it will be very interesting to see what we all conclude!
-
Thanks everyone for your comments posted here . We appear to have an interesting group poised to begin the discussion by my quick mental calculation a day less than two weeks from today. How close did I come?
I think there have been some good comments made particularly regarding Churchill. He certainly made an impression on 1939-40 Americans, me included. I suppose as one of you said in a post, the year's delay following the Munich agreement did give England some time to rearm, perhaps not much regarding the army and navy, but I know the year did bring the spitfire fighter into operational status. Also his American Mother seemed to endear him with Americans. In his war time speech to the US. Congress, he noted that if his father had been American, he might have got there on his own.
-
My book is on the way.
-
My book has come!!
-
OH, GOOD, KIDSAL AND JOAN, we have a wonderful group to begin our discussion on April 1st.
Tomorrow I am going to see the movie THE LAST STATION which stars Helen Mirren and while at the Library last week I got a lovely, lovely book written by her with photographs and stories of her life. Her father, grandfather, were Russians and immigrated to England where because of lack of language skills, etc. both were taxicab drivers. I must get a couple of her movies at the library and watch them.
I've seen THE QUEEN, have any of you?
Do you think America still has a fascination with England and all that it represents? And just what does it represent to us?
-
I loved "The Queen".
Pat and I grew up with an Anglophile mother, and have been absorbed in things English all our lives. I don't know if it's true of the rest of you, and not of this generation. I don't think the English contribution to literature will soon be forgotten.
-
I just ran across a couple of new books at Amazon.com and Powell's Books that I want to read as kind of a supplement to the book we will be reading. Thought you might be interested:
MUNICH, 1938; APPEASEMENT AND WORLD WAR II by David Faber (2009). "David Faber offers a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how Hitler outwitted the smug and curiously naïve Chamberlain to win control of much of Czechoslovakia and start down the road to war. Dramatic, exciting, and at times almost unbearably poignant, Munich, 1938 puts a human face to a key turning point in history and makes it come alive." -- per Lynne Olson, author of Troublesome Young Men
1938; HITLER'S GAMBLE by Giles Macdonogh (2009) Per Booklist's review, "Nineteen thirty-eight was the year the Nazi regime went into radical high gear, when its leader destroyed two countries and unleashed the worst pogroms yet against Jews. In a journalistic rendering of the year, MacDonogh begins with the shake-up of German army leadership that replaced skeptics of Hitler’s course in foreign policy with reliable lackeys. Hitler wanted a war in 1938, not the peace brokered by Neville Chamberlain. For the moment, then, fanatical Nazis had to remain content with persecuting Jews, which escalated drastically toward the notorious genocidal threat Hitler publicly prophesied in early 1939. An accessible chronicle of crisis and atrocity that should especially interest readers who want to review the gathering storm of World War II."
Marj
-
Well, of course JOANK. And literature, well, where would you begin?
And historically. You mentioned the present generation; have you noticed a change in their outlook of England by any chance?
Particularly in politics or a political nature?
Oh, WOW, MARJ, do those books sound great! And your comments about them will be greatly appreciated. Do you have any children/grandchildren - young ones that have studied history (or slept through lectures) - that have any interest in England and America's connection to it; whether from 1620 or 1942?
Isn't England our greatest ally in Europe? What is our present relationship to Germany?
We can start a conversation about our two countries before we start the book; a preface to April, shall we say?
-
I am reading a very fascinating book right now--Hitler by ian kershaw. It puts Hitler in perspective with his times and shows what an unusual personality he had ( I mean, as well as being totally evil and all that which goes without saying, or which we could not NOT say,politically correctnesswise, even if he wasn't. Not that Ithink there is anything to say in his favour, don't get me wrong.....)
But he seems to have cocooned himself into isolation, surrounding himself only by those who agreed with him, and to have become completely to believe in his own propaganda and invincibility. Always convinced that he had special gifts, never able to buckle down and work like a regular person, very much ashamed of his failures, very able to seize the moment and dare all, and initially his gambles paid off, increasing that sense of invincibility. Agreat book except it's two humungous volumes, I just started vol 2.
-
wHAT AN AMBITIOUS UNDERTAKING, DANA!
Two volumes! Have you read MEIN KAMPF? We found it all on the WEb in another conversation. I'll go bring it here.
Mein Kampf: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
-
PLEASE NOTE THE READING SCHEDULE IN THE HEADING. IF YOU ARE GOING TO START READING A FEW DAYS BEFORE APRIL, PLEASE STICK TO THE SCHEDULE WE HAVE PLANNED.
IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION IF WE DO THIS.
Thank you, thank you, all. I watched Lawrence of Arabia last night, until it got too late, and so I am in the "bowing" mood. I bow to you and say SHALOM - is that what those members of the tribes were saying to each other before they left to conquer the Turks in Aqaba. My hearing is not all that good.
-
Ella, I hope you enjoyed Lawrence of Arabia. It is one of the very few movies that I found actually stay with the book. I could only find one incident where the book and the movie didn't agree. O'Toole did an exceptional job of capturing T.E. Lawrence IMO.
-
SHALOM is the Hebrew version. In Arabic, it's similar, I'm not sure exactly.
Wish I had seen it.
-
Well, I know the British had the EMPIRE during this period, FRYBABE! So, of course, Lawrence was sent to Arabia to do exactly _____________? And what did he do?
I confess when it came to INTERMISSION I went to bed so did not see the end of it and I haven't read the book.
JOANK: I watch TCM often at night if they look like they were made in this century, hahahahaaa. They beat all the violence and sex on other stations.
-
I think the movie captures some of the possible truth-- that Lawrence did his own thing, promising the Arabs more that he could possibly gaurantee, and the Brits were still looking towards empire expansion, so the Arabs were sold down the river by him. Great movie!! SO handsome....back then....
I have not read Mein Kampf except extracts in various books. I will take a look. Thank you for the website. What I have read of his speeches and quotes from Mein Kampf is grandiose repetetive and nothing you'd think anyone could swallow. But it was a best seller and made him a millionaire!
-
When the Arabs revolted against the Turks, Lawrence was sent out to Arabia on a fact finding mission and then became liaison officer. He was a bit of a rogue and made promises to the Arab leaders on behalf of the British government without their authorization. And, of course, the government only gave or held out promises just enough to keep the Arab tribes fighting against the Turks. After the war Lawrence advocated Arab independence, but the British and French governments had other ideas. You may want to look up the Sykes-Picot Agreement made in secret between France and Britain which was made in 1916, also, the Paris Peace Conference where Lawrence lobbied for Arab independent states. Woodrow Wilson also advocated Arab autonomy. Of course Wilson and Lawrence and ultimately the Arab states lost out.
I have my book and intend to start reading the first five chapters next weekend.
-
hi there
have my copy of 'Troublesome Young Men', and beginning to read it--am lurking in the fiction group reading 'the bookthief' and enjoying the links pertaining to it, and also by time period, this book --amazing that it appears Germany really became an entity slowly, like many countries as gradually town/city meshed with the next town/city, by whatever means
--history to me seems such a puzzle, and I guess there is no way to complete the border so things fit neatly in place sense wise; with history always some new perspective, a new uncovered fact changing my way of looking at the world. Every new bit of information just pushes me to want to know more, & why, & ....,
--well I guess you get my enthusiasm
-hope to contribute when the book gets going, but find in 'the bookthief', its like double-dutch skipping, and I am forever trying to get into the ropes where the action is.....
Deb
-
Okay, I get what Lawrence was expected to do and what he did, but I will look at the Sykes-Picot Agreement and, of course, now I want to know how all these Arab countries, the ones America is involved with paqrticularly, came to fix borders anad became Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Afghan, etc. Perhaps I knew at one time and have forgotten? Anyway, like
DEB said - I want to get in the ropes where the action is! I LIKE THAT!
We will be getting there soon, today being the 22nd.
But back to England - and Parliament.
Who understands how Parliament works? The difference between it and our own Congress? I know, the Queen, but how much influence does she really have?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com)
and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
___________________________________________________________________________________
They sometimes broadcast sessions of Parliament on C-Span at night. I'm not a regular enough listener to know the schedule. Does anyone else?
The atmosphere is quite different than in the US Congress -- much more raucous, everybody yelling at the speaker, name calling etc.
-
It's probably important for understanding the book to understand the difference between the British Parliamentary system and our American system. I hope I can make it clear.
First: there are two houses: House of Lords and House of Commons. But the House of Lords is ceremonial -- legislative business is done in "the Commons".
Second: the Prime minister corresponds to our President. But he/she is not elected by the people. Rather, people vote for their "member" of Parliament. The party that gets the majority of seats choses one member to be Prime minister. If no one party gets a majority, the parties meet and form a coelition government.
Third: there aren't regularly scheduled elections, although there is a limit to how long they can go without an election (I THINK it's 7 years -- not sure). Within that, a party rules until it is defeated on a vote that is considered a major one. Then, it's said, the government has "fallen" and a new election is held. If Obama had failed to pass the healthcare bill and we were in England, we would have had a new election of all of the members of Parliament. And perhaps Obama would have been "out".
More in a minute.
-
So there are two ways a prime minister can lose his office. His government can "fall" and there be a new election. Or his party can boot him out, and a new PM be chosen by the party. I don't know the method for that, but I think we'll learn it in this book.
One more difference: when someone runs for Parliament, he doesn't have to (and usually doesn't) live in the area that he will represent. He gets "in" with party members, and they find a nice "seat" for him to run for. This explains how all these members of Parliament, even those from working class and poor district,all come rom the same small pool of the elite. As we will see, many of them have never seen their district until they run to represent it.
When people vote for their member, they know they are also voting on who will be the Prime minister. So presumably, they'll vote for a member they don't like to get the PM and politics they want. But if the PARTY doesn't like a person, they can refuse to let them run for that seat next time. Thus, his party can have a stronger hold on a politician than his constituents.
And of course, this hold is important for the party since if their members oppose them their government will "fall" and they will have to struggle to get a majority of seats in the next election.
-
Thanks for that explanation, JOANK. It's hardly what we would consider a 'representative' type
of government. Still, it appears to work. At least the party in power knows that if they don't
please the people, they will lost their majority in the next election. So the people do have some power in their hands, even if their 'representative' must pay more attention to the party line than the needs of his constituents. It will help to have this all in mind when we get
into the politics of the book.
-
Oh, you did that very well, JOANK. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
We do need that information to understand many things in this book and we will be referring to your explanation again.
It's a bit like Hillary Clinton, in a way. She had never lived in New York, but decided to become their Senator, ran for it and got elected. And the Democratic party helped tremendously.
Perhaps the differences would be she then must reside in New York, which she now does; whereas, a member of Parliament (MP) does not. Of course, now she is Secretary of State.s
Do these Parliament members visit their district often? As you say, the MP's described in our book are elitist and probably have never been in their district before.
Now as to the Prime Minister - oh, I must go - late for an appt.
-
Some things I remember about the English parliamentary governmental system. The Chief of state is the Monarch, a hereditary King or Queen. The monarch role today is limited to the ceremonial role of a chief of state as distinguished from a Chief of government. The Chief of government today in England is the Prime Minister who is a Member of Parliament, the legislative body. Thus under the English system both legislative and executive powers are exercised by member of parliament. The Prime Minister and chief ministers responsible for various Government departments are all also legislators not just making laws through new legislation but also exercising executive day to day control of the government.
In contrast under the U.S. constitution the President is both Chief of State and Chief of Government. The executive and legislative branches are emphatically separated by the Constitution with the power and role of each spelled out in separate sections of the written Constitution. The Constitution then continues to a 3rd article creating a separate and very independent judicial system that has come to serve as a watch dog assuring the constitutionality of acts of the Executive and legislative branches
There are many other differences between each of the two systems with advantages and disadvantages inherent in both. I think further thoughts with comments on these differences are appropriate for this preliminary secession prior to our April 1st opening. I have go go now. But will make further comment later.
-
Thank you for all of the information about the Brittish political system. I am reading chapter 2, of our book. Ella, and Harold, many thanks to you, for the choice of this book. I am finding it fascinating. I have never understood the differences between the American system, and that of the Brits.
I am really looking forward to our discussion, and learning more.
Sheila
-
Now, I must understand this. As JOANK has stated all legislative business is done in the House of Commons in Britain.
I'm not sure yet, JOAN, what the House of Lords does?
Here is a brief statement about a parliamentary system of government:
Legislatures called parliaments operate under a parliamentary system of government in which the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament. This can be contrasted with a presidential system, on the model of the United States' congressional system, which operate under a stricter separation of powers whereby the executive does not form part of, nor is appointed by, the parliamentary or legislative body.
Typically, congresses do not select or dismiss heads of governments, and governments cannot request an early dissolution as may be the case for parliaments
That last sentence seems to be the main difference, with, of course, the Queen. No one can dismiss her! Hahahahaa
-
the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament
Britain doesn't have a constitution, does it?
-
It has the Magna Carta. I don't know if there is a constitution as well.
-
Here are a few other interesting things about the English political system. The term of a Parliament is five years. In other words by law passed by Parliament there must be a general election every five years. However, a government may if it deems it politically advantageous call for a new general election any time during the term. This has been a rather common practice any time the party in power finds itself particularly popular. I remember Mrs Thatcher used this strategy in 1982 a few months after her Falklands Islands naval campaign successfully liberated the Falkland British Island population from Argentine military occupation. Though the term of the parliament had several remaining years to run, an easy electoral victory assured the party another 5 years. Other governments before and since then have used this strategy.
I note within my memory one exception to the 5 year life of a Parliament rule. It was in WW II. During the 1938 1945 period Britain went through at least 7 wartime years without a general election. In the U.S. we went through the full political process reelecting the wartime President in 1944 in the face of spirited political opposition.
I don’ think there is anywhere a single written document styled the UK Constitution. Yet English Political writings sometimes refer to an English constitution though unwritten based on centuries of tradition, historic Royal concessions (including the Magna Charter), and particularly basic laws passed by parliaments. In this regard the English Parliament certainly seems much more powerful than the U.S. Congress. In England the Queens Consent (approval) of laws passed by Parliament today is an automatic, ceremonial routine while in the U.S. Laws passed by Congress required Presidential approval and are subject to presidential veto that can only be over ridden by a super Congressional majority. Also U.S laws passed by Congress are subject to review by the Federal Court System. Frequently Congressional approved laws signed by the President have been invalidated as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don’t know if Court reviews of Laws passed by the English Parliament are ever subject to court review, but I suspect that court invalidation of parliament is at best rare.
-
Britian is a Constitutional Monarchy. Magna Carta is part of the English Constituion. The whole body of laws is the Constitution. It is not a written document. Here is a link to Wikipedia which gives tons of information about Parliament and has links to listening to broadcasts also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom
Joan Grimes
-
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU who posted about Parliament, the system of government that Great Britain has; I know we will have another question or two as we discuss the book. I am so looking forward to it.
WESTMINSTER PALACE:
The Palace of Westminster contains over 1,100 rooms, 100 staircases and 4.8 kilometres (3 mi) of passageways,[15] which are spread over four floors. The ground floor is occupied by offices, dining rooms and bars; the first floor (known as the principal floor) houses the main rooms of the Palace, including the debating chambers, the lobbies and the libraries. The top-two floors are used for committee rooms and offices.
Imagine that! I don't know how big our own Capitol Building is, but I can find out later.
Why would any of our Troubled YOung Men have to leave the building, but they did!!!
-
Images of Wesminster Palace - England's Capitol Building
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Westminster_Palace.html
-
The next U.K general election will have to come on or before June 3, 2010, This date will mark the 5 year term limit of the present Parliament. The present Labor Party Government is waiting until the last minute since it now appears the Conservative Party will win.
This brings up another characteristic of U.K. Elections. The election campaign is completed in six week. This means that sometime before mid April the new election date will be announced and the campaign will begin.
Such a short campaign period, is of course quite opposite to our custom in the U.S. ,dragging it out about 2 years. We will begin our 2012 campaign next January when candidates begin to announce their candidacies. It will move into high gear as 2011 passes to its climax in the summer and fall of2012. Finally a winner will begin his/her 4 year term January 20, 2013
Click the following for Wikopedia article on the coming UK General election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
-
I must admit that in most things I prefer our system to the British, but I like the idea of limiting the campaign to six weeks a lot. It seems more and more in this country that we are ALWAYS in the middle of a campaign, and that all political decisions become campaign decisions, even more than usual.
-
One can only speculate what effect lengthening the term for Representatives would have. I wonder how they have time to conduct legislative business at all between fund raising and campaigning. Two years is no time at all.
My nephew has spent many years in Asia in business and he reads The Guardian as do some 750,000 others. Curious to see what this business oriented organization wrote about Olsen's book, I found this http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/28/featuresreviews.guardianreview4
I am astounded by this book, can hardly put it down.
-
Book arrived today. On a trip to England I sat next to a man who had a construction business. His company had been hired to work in Westminster - said it is too bad the public can't tour some of the areas as the tile work is so beautiful.
-
Got my book from the library yesterday and have started reading it. Immediately engrossing,
and this stuff really happened! It does make it more exciting, knowing none of this is fiction.
-
Are you saying KIDAL that no one can tour Westminster or just certain areas? I don't know if I have read that anywhere.
Here is a brief history of the building:
"The first royal palace was built on the site in the eleventh century, and Westminster was the primary London residence of the Kings of England until a fire destroyed much of the complex in 1512. After that, it served as the home of Parliament, which had been meeting there since the thirteenth century, and the seat of the Royal Courts of Justice, based in and around Westminster Hall. In 1834, an even greater fire ravaged the heavily rebuilt Houses of Parliament, and the only structures of significance to survive were Westminster Hall, the Cloisters and Chapter House of St Stephen's, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft and the Jewel Tower.
-
HAROLD, that is very interesting - "The election campaign is completed in six week
And, am I correct, in stating that this is for just the House of Commons? The Prime Minister is chosen by the majority party, correct?
And the House of Lords are not elected?
I have to get this straightened out in mind before we take up the book!
And, yes, wouldn't it be nice if the campaigns for our Congressional representataives would just be allowed to last six weeks. If would be cost effective for both parties, wouldn't it? And our President?
-
I just picked up my copy of our book at the college I'm attending. It is borrowed from another nearby college and has a warning taped to the front, saying they could possibly charge me $120 fine if the book is lost or returned damaged. Really? $120? Sheesh. What happened to just replacing the book?
From reading all your comments here on this thread, I can't imagine reading Troublesome Young Men and not underlining passages or writing in the margins, so I think I'm going to get on line and order a copy for myself. Sure will be cheaper than paying $120 when I drop the book in a mud puddle, eh?
How does the book discussion work here? Do we discuss a chapter a week, or is it a day by day thing as we each read at our own pace?
-
Since I'm first in line behind you, DONNAMO, I'll go ahead and answer your question. Check
the heading at the top of the page. You'll find a discussion schedule there.
Did you ever mention what college you're attending? I'm always interested in what people
are studying and where.
-
Imagine there are certain sections of the building where the public is not allowed just as our capitol building.
-
DONNAMO: WELCOME! I can see you're an actve reader, and I think you'll really enjoy our discussions.
As you can see in the heading, the first "week" (April 1 to 8 ) we discuss the first 5 chapters, coming in whenever you want, and discussing anything you want, but not going ahead (I had to sit on my eyes to avoid reading ahead, but it's a better discussion if we don't). Ella and Harold may put up discussion questions to stir discussion; you can focus on them or ignore them, we usually go all over the place.
Enjoy!
-
Hello, everyone. I just found this book in our public library and I'd love to talk about it with you. The premise sounds intriguing.
I usually read more fiction than nonfiction.
My head is spinning from the information posted here about how the British government is constituted. I hope that there will be information in the book that will help me become more familiar with this knowledge. I look forward to getting into the book and this discussion in a few days. I know I'll learn a lot from the book and from each of you.
-
I can join in this discussion as my library actually has a copy available I should have it by April 1! I have reserved it and it usually takes about two business days for me to be able to pick it up.
Carolyn
-
Our Parliament is run on the Westminster system also. I don't think I would like any other system. Its always been a very stable system for the last 100 or more years. We may not have constitutions but we do have many laws protecting civil liberties. It is also good that there can be a vote of no confidence within a party caucus and a PM can be replaced by their own party. Also there can be a vote of no confidence in the Govt and new elections be called. It has not happened often but it can happen. I think we have a lot of freedom really in our system. However we have Proportional Representation (like Germany) as our voting system whereas UK has first past the post.
Carolyn
-
OH, THIS IS WONDERFUL. WHAT A GOOD GROUP WE ARE GOING TO BE WHEN APRIL lst ROLLS AROUND.
DONNAMO, I hope you will have a book in front of you by then, whether it is a library one or whether you buy one. Like you, I want to underline, write in the margin, make notes in the back; but by the time I am through reading I feel as though it is an old comfortable friend.
HI MARCIE. I'm so happy you are joining us. The book is good, you'll enjoy it and at times it reads a bit like fiction. The lives of these young men are fascinating, but they are all too real and had an immense impact on the outcome of WWII.
CAROLYN: WELCOME, we need your input. We'll be asking you many questions, indeed, yes! Thanks for joining in.
I'm not superstitious! Does anyone have any thoughts about starting our conversation of FOOLS DAY?
-
Seems appropriate to me since IMHO this book could have had an alternative title with the word "FOOLS" prominently featured.
-
That's funny, mrssherlock.:-) April 1 is fine for me too.
-
I heard Cokey Roberts say in a book review that she thought electing a woman president in our US system of government would be much harder than in the parliamentary system of government. The reason being that the party in power picks their leader where we elect among millions of people across fifty states. Perhaps she is right as Great Britain had Margaret Thatcher and Israel had Golda Meir years ago.
-
In one administration here, the last administration, we had women in every high seat. PM
Chief Justice etc and even the Governor General was a woman at one stage. This admin lasted for 9 years. We have had 2 woman PMs so far. Jenny Shipley (National Party ( conservative) and the last PM was Helen Clark now at the UN. She represented the NZ Labour Party (centre left) Mind you reading in your political forums in the US our centre left would be considered socialist which is NOT a dirty word here as its not Communism as commonly thought in the US. To me brought up for much of my life under several Socialist Administrations our current Labour party is very much centerist. Much like New Labour in the UK. Our elections take place three yearly.
-
hi there, it's Deb from Canada
we did have a woman Prime Minister, 'Kim Campbell' from the conservative party....she followed Brian Malrooney, who was very unpopular ,....and I believe because of him, the conservative party almost lost status in the next election & sadly Kim Campbell never got to show us 'her stuff'....I would really have liked to have seen her in office longer!
-
That brought a smile, JACKIE!
That's an excellent point, FLAJEAN! I would like to discuss a book about either of those ladies. Did either of them write an autobiography? Well, I can look them up, of course.
CAROLYN, I think, perhaps, our government is attempting to catch up to socialism with our healthcare bill. But we better not get into a discussion of that!! Mercy!
DEB, I don't understand. Why didn't the lady, the PM Kim Campbell get to "show her stuff?"
-
'Why didn't the lady, the PM Kim Campbell get to "show her stuff?" '
Deb may remember it differently, but she is right about the prime minister's unpopularity after several terms. The way I remember it...well, let's start with politicians and their egos. Brian Malroney, who had done some good things, couldn't face defeat in an election. As prime minister it was his privilege to resign his office and 'recommend' to the governor-general a successor to take over his office. The g-g would then call on the pm's choice to form a government, having satisfied himself that the new prime minister would be supported by a majority in the House of Commons. Once Kim Campbell was prime minister she called an election. She had been a popular member of Mulroney's cabinet and she had shown good stuff, but under the circumstances she had no good prospects of leading the party to victory in an election. She was used in a sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, Deb. Is it already twenty years since then!. Kim resigned and went to live in California to head up a Canadian consulate there.
-
I watched an hour program last night, on the National Geographic Channel. Can't remembrt the exact title. Something like "The Nazi King of England". I found it fascinating! It began with Edward's single life as a Prince. Then covered his courtship of Wallis. They both were fans of Hitler. Spending time in Germany in the mid to late 1930s.
Churchill was involved in excialing him to a chain of small islands. Edward's life was under the scrutiny of both the Brits, and our FBI. I was a child in the 30s, but remember my family talking about his activities.
The program talked about Hitler's intention of capturing England, and putting Edward back on the throne as a puppet King. I am wondering if any of you saw the program. After watching the program, I erased the recording. Today, I wish I had kept it, as I would like to see it again.
Sheila
-
I think Wallis Simpson and Edward had an unhealthy relationship. She was very much in charge. I felt he was a weak man really and probably would have made a very unsatisfactory king. His shy younger brother came up trumps with the support of his wife and was much loved.
Carolyn
-
briefly back to 'Kim Campbell', Canadian Prime Minister
I am almost 60; and at the time Kim Campbell was our Prime Minister, I must say I wasn't very interested in our political situation--I know she became the P.M. when Malroney stepped down; their caucus voted her to the position--but Malroney was very unpopular with pushing the 'free trade' thru despite MAJOR opposition --sort of on par with the unrest in getting the health care thru in your country
--thats my memory about it anyway
Deb
-
It seems to me that it was commom knowledge to everyone that Edward was a Nazi Sympathizer. I was just a child in the 30s also but My dad kept up with all the world news and it was discussed every night at the dinner table. I remember seeing Wallis Simpson's pic on the Front page of the news paper and my dad talking about the whole situation at length. I have seen several movies and read several books about Wallis and EDward. I just cannot remember th names of them right now.
I think that Carolyn is right that Wallis was a much stronger person Edward. She was able to influence him.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com)
and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
For generations, the old boy network, small, tight-knit and insular - dominated British government and society. Is it true today, do you think? Do you see parallels in our government?
Isn’t it true that "party loyalty" is necessary to get ahead in our own government, to get the power, to get the chairmanships of the "right" committees? David Margesson, the chief whip of the Tory party, a prime example, never doubted the rightness of his party; Would more doubts have made a difference?
In the Introduction Edward R. Murrow reporting from England in 1939 states: "the machine is out of control, we are all passengers on an express train traveling at high speed through a dark tunnel toward an unknown destiny. The suspicion recurs that the train may have no engineer, no one who can handle it." What are your thoughts on this statement, does it resonate with anything in the USA in your lifetime?
How did the USA public react to what was going on in Germany in the decade of the thirties? How did the public in England react?
How did the leaders, the political leaders, of both countries react?
Neville Chamberlain, how did he come to office, how did he stay in so long? Were you shocked by some of the facet of the man’s personality? What amazed you the most?
Many of the men that the author has focused on in these first few chapters are veterans of WWI. Are you surprised by their attitudes toward impending war?
Consequently, are you surprised by the attitude of the older men in Parliament?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MAKES THREE! Three from parliamentary governments! Oh, that's just grand, we will (I will need you!) to explain a few matters in the book! WELCOME JONATHAN, happy to see you.
Perhaps we should say a few words about our author, LYNN OLSON, former White House correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, who makes her home in Washington. D.C. Don't you wonder how she got interested in WWII and wouldn't you think she would have to have traveled or lived in England a bit while doing her research for this book?
If you look at the first page of the Bibliography you notice that she did study the archives at several English libraries. Where did she reside when she did all that research?
Here is her home page - http://www.lynneolson.com/index.htm - and as you can see, she has a new one out with reviews from Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews, both historians in their own right.
Have any of you read her other two books or her new one, which looks very good!
When I think of WWII, it was a turning point in many ways; halfway through the 20th century, a world war in the mightiest sense of that phrase. We will never see its like again. And it was the source of thousands, nay, millions of books, movies, histories, etc.
-
For maybe the third time I saw the movie QUEEN last night on TV; you learn something new each time you see it. Helen Mirren did such an excellent job, don't you think? Queen Elizabeth, according to the movie, believed the abdication that CAROLN and JOAN mentioned brought about the early death of her father, King George VI. She is surviving well, isn't she?
-
Ella, I have just bought Lynne Olson's new book The Citizens of London:The Americans Who Stood With Britain in its Darkest,Finest Hour . I am going to start reading it immediately. I am sure it is going to be very good.
-
Just reserved Citizens of London from our library and am 6th on the list. It really sounds interesting. What would we do without forums like this? I so appreciate the suggestions and opinions of everyone here.
-
Yes this place really is great..Don't know what we would do without it.
-
I should have my book tomorrow afternoon. I will start it at once. My daughter is a librarian but her position is interesting in that she is what is called the relief librarian so she travels around all the branches to substitute for those on leave. Tomorrow she is at the Main branch where my book is waiting for me. I never go there weekdays as there is no parking. Our Main library is part of the Unitech campus (City and Unitech did a joint venture with this magnificent library) so when all the students are in class the car park is absolutely full. My daughter is picking the book up for me today and I will collect it tomorrow from her house when I go up to mind the children after school.
We have the best library system in the Auckland region. The powers that be have decided to combine all the city councils into one entity coming into effect early next year. So I will actually live in Auckland city from next year instead of Waitakere city. I am afraid that all the money will go into the CBD and we will lose out. It is the fear of many. Its a ridiculous idea as there is such diversity in the area and a huge geographic area including many rural counties are being included. I can see the parks and trails out here being neglected so that where the tourists all go in the CBD gets all the money spent there. We truly have wonderful trails and parks where I live. Wonderful libraries too I think the best in the region. We are worried about it declining.
-
Is there any way I can extend this window for posting. I can only post a couple of paragraphs and then it starts jumping around and not allowing me to post any more. I tried dragging down the window like in some other sites but that does not work. I use IE as my browser.
Carolyn
-
CAROLYN, I will ask some of our "techs" to come in and help you; I can't help at all. I have to call the Geek Squad or with my new modern box I can pick it up and take it in when there is a problem. My daughter is as helpless as I am. Oh, for a grandchild, but, alas, I am not blessed.
For those of you who do not know, CAROLYN, is from New Zealand. Oh, what I wouldn't give for your climate, but we have a beautiful spring coming in OHIO (in the midwest section of the USA, Carolyn).
-
Hello, Carolyn!
I hate when that post box starts jumping around - impossible to post, isn't it? Fortunately, there's an easy fix. If you look up at the very top of your screen where the browser line is located, and then follow to the right, you will see a blue box with something that looks like a torn page in the middle. It's the "Compatability View" box. If you click that, your problem should be solved. Let us know how you do. And welcome aboard, old friend.
-
Thanks Joan!
I have already got my book. My daughter is working at the library on the fringe of our city so she had a ways to travel this morning. She dropped Grace off here so I could take her to school and dropped off my book too. Graces school had "wheels""day today so she had an extra bag with her roller skates and helmet in it. I took her in the car instead of walking my dog with her as we usually do on days where Nicky has to leave early. I should add both my grandaughters are avid readers! My 12 year old grand is anxious for me to read her fantasy books like Twilight so she lends books to me. I love being able to relate with the girls with reading and with technology. Brooke also reads history (NZ history) and she lends me books not available when I was at school. ( much of our history documented at the time was untrue due to political reasons)
Looking forward to the start of what is sure to be a very interesting discussion.
Carolyn
-
WELL, HERE IT TIS - THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL - APRIL FOOL’S DAY - is everybody here and awake and ready to begin to discuss our book. A drum roll maybe? A joke!
There is a bit of news to tell you; our author, Lynne Olson, has emailed her interest in our discussion and may drop in when she has time. Isn’t that interesting news! Didn’t a couple of you say you had bought her new book? I wonder if she is busy on a new one and if she will write one on the same period, on England, or what? Perhaps we can ask her.
We have put a few questions in the heading that will, maybe, keep us on target; keep us in the first five chapters of our book. There is so much to discuss here and if you like history, you will want to stay for the whole month, indeed, yes!
We’ve discussed parliamentary procedures in our pre-discussion, but in these five chapters we get into many facets of the characters of the members of Parliament. Were you aware of the fact they have no assigned seats - in fact, there are not enough seats for all in the House of Commons; they all meet in a smoking room to discuss issues?
And that a member of Parliament, Josiah Wedgwood of the famed pottery family, made the comment that in the U.S. House, where every member had his own suite of offices there is no family life, nothing to discuss in common. It is not social, it is not the life of ideas, it is a business.” (pg.27)
What are your thoughts?
-
Hi Ella, I am here. Although I do not have book I will be here lurking in the corner. I will be learning from your discussion. I am reading Citizens of London: The Americans Who Stood With BritainIn its Darkest Finest Hour. By Lynne OLson also. It is really interesting and well written.
Joan Grimes
-
The picture Olson paints of Britain's ruling class is appalling. There is such a wide gulf between them with their lives of frivolity and hedonism, and the workers, yes, Marx' proletariat though he didn't live to see The Great Depression. As self-centered as they were it is not surprising that Hitler's philosophy was attractive since, in the abstract, a dictatorship is very efficient and self-fulfilling. Especially those old men, isolated from the horrors of WWI. 750,000 killed! What a relief to them to have those potential ambitious "young Turks" gone before then could threaten the status quo. One can better understand the insanity of the struggle over a few yards of mud which represented most of the war's efforts since the trenches were full of pawns, not living, breathing men.
-
AH JACKIE! Yes.
You have just commented about our first question in the heading - For generations, the old boy network, small, tight-knit and insular - dominated British government and society. Is it true today, do you think? Do you see parallels in our government?
-
I suppose there are some parallels in our government -- look at the two Bushes becoming president, and all the cronies of Bush Sr. and Reagan who came into the Bush Jr. administration. But then there is our current president, Obama. He sure wasn't among the "ruling class" here.
I have a couple of questions maybe someone would know:
Why had Britain pledged to take up arms in defense of Poland if Hitler were to invade? Of course they didn't do so, but I just wondered why they made that pledge.
Also, the book says that in April, 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and routed the British army and navy from Norway. Why did Britain have an army and navy in Norway?
Marj
-
Hitler's philosophy was attractive to very few people in Britain, just Oswald Mosely and some others, including , unfortunately, the Prince of Wales. But having seen the horrors of the 1st world war many politicians were ready to do almost anything to prevent another slaughter, hence appeasement. I don't think the British upper class were any more hedonistic than any privileged group are. In the US to be privileged you just have to have money, in the UK unless you came from the right family having money just made you an upstart!!
I always thought that Britain pledged to defend Poland not directly but because they had a treaty with France which had a treaty with Poland, but my Hitler book seems to suggest that after the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia debacle Chamberlain and the cabinet decided Hitler was going to have to be stopped, that he was, after all, intent on German expansion, and therefore they told him they would intervene if he invaded Poland, at the same time leaning hard on the Poles to compromise with German demands and give up Danzig.
-
Good questions, Marj. Both the pledge to defend Poland and the invasion of Norway pointed to the ineptitude of Chamberlain as a wartime leader; and played an important part in the plot to get him out of office. But this all comes up later in the story. If you have to know now, the Poland question is answered on page 189, and the Norway debacle a hundred pages further along.
What a turmoil Europe was in, in the first half of the 20th century. Leaders were distracted by the problems facing their countries. Men like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolin were very aggressive in finding solutions. England and France were drifting, still in shock following the devastation of WWI.
There is a curious little sidelight on the attitudes of the upper class ruling class in the introduction. War has been declared, but very little is being done or not enough, in mobilizing the military. Quote:
'Mobilization was lethargic: able-bodied men were still working as chauffeurs and as doormen at London's private clubs and luxury hotels.'
I wonder what ruling lord made that observation in his diary for the benefit of the author historian. Was that the extent of his contact with the working class? What a fine thing to be served in these little things. Ted Sorensen in his book COUNSELOR admits he missed his chauffered limousine when he no longer was counselor to the president. It meant closing the door after getting out of his car.
-
Peter Duffy's The Bielski Brothers recounts the true story of Polish Jews, three brothers, who saved hundreds of Jews during WWII by constructing a village deep in in the forest. The beginning of the Nazi invasion is recounted, one brother was an officer in the Polish Army, where it is stated that Poland begged Britain for arms to no avail. The Polish cavalry confronting German tanks has been a joke but it seems that was all they had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans
-
We have a great discussion beginning here. I regret my necessary late arrival. I certainly remember Chamberlain, Hitler and other European leaders going back to 1938. I remember Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden going back to 1940. I remember them from their roles as war time leaders. Now from this book I am seeing them differently through the events leading them to their Wartime leader positions. Previously I knew that on May 10, 1940 the local news paper and radio news told us that the Chamberlain Government had fallen and a Winston Churchill had formed a new government. Our book has detailed the events that led to this historic even. I had never heard of the other troublesome young men mentioned in the book including Robert Boothby, Ronald Cartland, Leo Amery, and other names. Even prominent players such as Harold Macmillan and Harold Nicolson did not come within my knowledge until later when they became Prime Minister in the 1950’s and 60’s. Now through the reading of the first five chapters we see the details of the governmental events leading to the beginning WW II and the events leading to the fall of the Chamberlain Government.
I wouldn’t call Olson’s picture of the English ruling class appalling: History reveals an acceleration of social reform going back to the renunciation of the divine right off Kings in the late 17th Century. The reform movement accelerated in the early 19th century with the abolition of Slavery in 1833. It continuing strong through the 19th and 20th centuries. Much of the leadership of the reform movements came from this ruling class not only within the Tory Party, but also the leaders of the Liberal Party and later Labor Party who were from this ruling class.
-
Interesting comments here. About the different forms of Govt - Constitutional Monarchies v Republics, my personal thoughts are why did America get rid of a Monarch and then as time went on promote the Office of President to an equivalent of a Monarch. This is how it seems to me as a foreigner. The Queen as a Constitutional Monarch has little political power, yet the President as Head of State has enormous power. Its an interesting conundrum to us as non Americans.
I have read the introduction and there is much written here that I did not know. I think its going to be a very enthralling discussion. My dad is English. ( he only has NZ residency and has never changed his Nationality) He served in the British Navy from the age of 14 as a Naval Cadet and from the age of 19 in combat right through to the end of the war. I have heard much about the war from family and also from history books but yet this background information is all new to me. I do know my grandfather did not care much for Chamberlain. My grandpa was a left winger all his life and served in the Great War when we were still very much part of Great Britain. He said at the time he would never fight again. There were so many upper class incompetent Commanders. However his hatred of Fascism was such that he was amongst the first to sign up for the Home Guard ( being too old to fight and also in a vital industry - The Railroad. )The Home Guard was supposed to guard the population while the able bodied young men were away fighting the Nazis.
Britain lost so many young men in the Great War I can understand in a way why many were so reluctant to engage in another conflict.
Carolyn
-
Harold: Interesting to learn about the social reforms. Not knowing English history as you do, I was reacting to the picture she painted of the social acceptance of moral laxity. My middle class background, I guess. I shall search for some of the references that led me to this conclusion.
-
THE RULING CLASS! Several of you have mentioned it. I'm not sure what is meant?
MARJFAY put it in quotes and commented that Obama certainly wasn't included. Does it mean your wealth? Your forbears? Your education?
DANA called them the privileged group and remarked that in England wealth didn't necessarily guarantee you were a member.
JONATHAN alluded to the upper class and also those in the "lower class" I presume; the chauffeurs and the doorman. In America we might call them the blue collars and the white collars!
Hi JACKIE We will get into that Polish question soon. It's difficult, I know, to stick our schedule, but it's so much more fun in the long run.
And thank you, HAROLD, whether late or early I am so glad you are here.
WE HAVE SUCH A GRAND GROUP, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
It seemed when reading these five chapters that all these young men came from wealth or position in society. Was I wrong?
Another thought I had was there is little about Chamberlain's background. Although the book is about those men around the PM at the time, still he was the leader so I took myself off to the Library to find a biography of the man. I COULDN'T, NOT IN MY LIBRARY.
There should be one, he is such an interesting man. Arrogant, don't you think?
But getting back to the question of the old-boy network, it was certainly working during this period in England wasn't it? In Chapter Two Olson emphasizes how loyal these men were to each other; they were all educated at elite institutions with great reverence for tradition and adherence to loyalty. THEY PLAYED THE GAME.
I think we shall see the disadvantage to that later in the book.
If you look at America during this period Roosevelt dominated the scene and his heritage? Uncle Teddy, weath, privilege, all of it!
-
CAROLYN, we were posting together and you bring us so many interesting subjects! Our revolutionary leaders, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, just to the name early presidents, spent countless hours on the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain and later, of course, our Constitution. I'm not a proper historian but they certainly were tired of the Monarch of England who they believed was taxing them and making rules and laws that were outrageiouly difficult for them to swallow. Hence the three branches of goverment, each with an oversight of the other. As I recall, John Adams wanted to call George Washington, our first president, Your Excellency, but Old George wanted nothing that resembled a Monarch.
HAROLD would be better at explaining our system of government than I.
We must discuss the attitude of the young men toward engaging in a war and the older men. I found that fascinating, what did all of you think of that?
-
CAROLYN: I think one of the most interesting things (for me) coming out of this discussion will be thinking about the differences between the English parliamentary system and ours. Both have servived the test of time in preserving Democracy, but both are different.
The US system does not create the president as a monarch -- far from it. The basis of our system is an idea of "balance of powers". There are three branches of government: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary (Supreme court). Each is independent, yet each has a check over the activities of the other. The President or the Congress can propose laws, but each can block the others proposal, and the Supreme Court can declare them constitutional. The members of the Court can't be fired, but the President appoints new ones, but the Congress must confirm them, and all presidential appointees. And so forth.
The weakness of the system is that it can lead to stalemate. That Obama managed to get something so new to this country as a healthcare bill enacted is almost a miracle. Usually, only in times of war or major economic crisis (the great depression) are major changes made. Particularly in situations where the President is one party and the Congress another nothing gets done. In England, such a government would fall, or be forced to make coilitions to avoid falling.
-
Ahh, the upper class. We have one in this country, too, but it's less obvious because we don't like upper classes, so we pretend we don't. The people with real status, money, and power are more tactful about displaying it (unlike the Donald Trumps, who go around saying "look how rich and powerful I am"). While the British like their upper class and display them.
In the US, as in England,it used to take more than money to be upper class. Those who made money were the "New Rich". It took a generation or two of going to the "right" schools and marrying the right people to be considered "upper class". How much influence the "upper class" has in politics, now, I don't know.
I think the fact that a Congressman from a district or state has to actually live there, prevents the Congress from being dominated by a small number of families, as Britain was.
-
That is what puzzles me! The stalemate issue ! It would probably result in a new election here. A vote of no confidence in the Govt in power. We have proportional representation so both major parties have to make some concessions to remain in power. I think its much better than first past the post as if you get a Very right wing or left wing party they can't get all their own way. It all seems to work out so far.
Why were the older politicians so against armed conflict. The devestation of the population due to the Great War was one reason. Money probably had a lot to do with it also. The Great War was costly to Britain. I don't think that the older politicians believed that Hitler would invade Britain due to the German Connections of the Royal family. The Royal family had a German name and it was changed to Windsor because of the First World war. Some of the older members of the Royal family had very close German connections.
Carolyn
-
Carolyn: I meant to ask you about those terms. What is "first past the post"? Does "proportional representation" mean that seats are assigned to a party according to the proportion of votes that the party gets nationally, and the party determines who will get those seats? That's how they did it in Israel when I lived there.
-
We have two votes. One for a party and one for our Parliamentary representative. According to the party vote each political party gets extra reps. They are on a party list and we know who they are in order of seniority before the election. Now the ordinary vote is for a set number of seats in Parliament and we all vote for the man we want to represent us. The list reps which are selected according to the percentages of the votes gained by their party are not directly elected by the people. You can vote strategically like I have in the past. I gave my party vote to the Greens because they espouse my environmental beliefs and my other vote to the sitting member ( who belongs to the major party of my choice) because he always has a safe majority in this seat. If the margin was small I would have given my party vote to the Political party I wanted to govern. The system is called MMP. First past the post is a two party system and those who get the most seats and not necessarily the most votes becomes the Government. It is not really a fair system. The Conservatives here would like to go back to First past the post and are constantly pushing for a citizens referendum vote on the matter. It has been brought up once before and we voted to keep MMP.
I think personally Proportional Representation is truly democratic.
-
The House of Commons had a commons room where the politicians would spend time smoking, drinking and talking to one another. Many of our older politicians today lament the fact that many politicians no longer form friendships with the opposite party. There is a lack of civility which certainly makes progress harder to come by!
-
Thanks you, JOANK, for that explanation. You are so clear-eyed, so concise. Unlike myself, who is somewhat scatter-brained and it's to late in life to collect!
Two votes, CAROLYN! That is so interesting. We register for a party, (sometimes to stick to the party candidate, sometimes not), but have only one vote. Your vote of no confidence still has me stymied. I'm not sure just how that works. And I think with horror of how it might have worked here, e.g., if the healthcare bill had not been approved by Congress, Obama would have been out of office???? And then what???
Oh, I think you are so right, KIDSAL, the lack of civility in our government, it just fairly makes me sick why the parties cannot cooperate more. But our history is full of like troubles. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not speak for years and years over different views, so it started off that way!
In a hurry this morning, but I'll have to look it up in the book. It seemed to me when reading that it was the veterans of WWI who were for the war; whereas those who had never been in a war, the older ones particularly, were not. And I could not fathom that! But a veteran I know and with whom I discussed this fact concurs that they would!
-
Since we began on this theme, I will say that I hadn’t really thought of the difference it made,…other than to the young women of the time…all the young men lost in WWI. These were the young men who would have been moving into leadership had they lived. Their loss meant the older generation retained power past the time they would have moved aside. They were still caught up in vision of the world as they knew it when
they were young men. Those who never saw battle had no understanding of the difference that made. Baldwin’s naivete’ seems incredible.
The atmosphere at the time was described by The American socialite reporter speaking of the attitude of Londoners about the impending war: “The most you could get out of anyone was a short comment such as ‘Things aren’t too bright, are they?’ and you suddenly felt guilty of bad taste for having referred to it.” There are doubtless many things we are unaware of that the English would find in bad taste, but surely the young people must have talked among themselves about it. After all, it was bound to affect their lives in a very negative way. Perhaps it was only bad taste to show concern before outsiders. (What we need here is a native of England who was there at the time and can tell us all about it.
Then another correspondent wrote that “..life went on just the same as usual.” Well, of course it has to, doesn’t it? Paychecks must still be earned, the kids must be tended and the washing done. And the British are
noted for their cool, calm response to trouble.
-
I really don't believe it was a clear split between the young opposing appeasement and the old being for it. As my Hitler book (Ian Kershaw) says, the British and the French felt somewhat guilty at the tremendous reparations which were imposed on the Germans after WW1 and when Hitler started to break the treaty of Versailles, first by rearming, and then going on to take back the Rhineland, followed by Austria, then the Sudetenland, there was a feeling in Britain at least that these things were understandable, even justifiable, and they believed his assertions that he only wanted what was German and wanted peace. Hitler was a boldfaced liar, he didn't care what he promised, he was always intent on war but the diplomats of Europe found that impossible to believe until Czechoslovakia.
-
I probably more than most Americans have always noted a rather direct similarity between the initial 18th century U.S. Government under the initial Constitution and the English Government as it existed at that time. The new U.S. President was created with much same executive powers as the English King. The principal difference was that the executive was democratized by making the office elective for a limited 4 year term. Even so an incumbent could be reelected for subsequent terms. The Presidents power was quite similar to those of a late 18th century King. The president could even veto a law passed by Congress killing a bill that could only be overridden by a 2/3 super majority vote of the two houses of Congress.
The U.S. Legislative system too resembled the English system. In the U.S. the House of Representatives were elected to short terms to represent the people (or at any rate the franchised electorate) and the Senate tantamount to the House of Lords was elected by state legislatures to represent the States. The franchise probably extended to a greater portion of the U.S. population than in England at the time.
I think the real difference was that the US the written constitution provided a system of checks and balances making it difficult for either executive or legislative abuse of power. Also the Constitution created an independent Federal Judicial branch with a System of courts that proved further limitations on the powers of both the Executive and the Congress.
In all, I see the process of governance in late 18th Century U.S. as quite similar to governance in England at that time. In England through the two major reform laws passed in 1833 and 1867 the government evolved quite differently through the 19th and 20 century. Of course governance in the U.S. today too has evolved into something quite different from what it was in the beginning. So today the two governmental systems function quite differently, yet both seem to reflect the democratically elective choice of the respective peoples.
-
Harold: Please tell me about the reform laws in Britain in 1833 and 1867.
-
Jackie Click the following URL for a Web site summarizing 19th Century English parliamentary laws extending the franchise to a larger and larger electorate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A545195
I did not read the whole article but what I read it looked ok. Also I don't want to give the appearance that the reform process was a sudden occurrence. Truly it was slow. but over the centuries it did progress. The ruling class everywhere is not eager to give up a favored position. Yet over 200 or more years progress has been made (Even in the United States).
This does not cover reform in other areas such as the Outlawing of the Slave trade in 1807 and the Abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833. Did any of you see the movie "Amazing Grace" last year. This was the story of Wilbur Wilberforce and his long struggle to pass the act outlawing the slave trade. He was finally successful when the act became law in 1807. It was one of the factors precipitating the 1812 War. Slavers to avoid Royal Navy search took to flying the American flag. This led to Royal Navy stopping many American ships most who were not slavers. This was not the only reason for the war, but it was one of the causes.
-
Ellen wrote, "It seemed when reading these five chapters that all these young men came from wealth or position in society. Was I wrong?"
The only one I've read about so far who was not wealthy was Ronald Cartland, whose run for Parliament was financed by the royalties from his sister's books. But most of these young men didn't sound much like "commoners," did they?
I found a biography of Neville Chamberlain in my library: NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN by Iain MacLeod, 319 pp, (1961), also listed in the book's bibligraphy. Another in the bibliography is THE LIFE OF NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN by Keith Feiling (1940).
I've requested a book from my library that might be interesting, John F. Kennedy's WHY ENGLAND SLEPT.
Marj
-
Lynne Olson will discuss her latest book, CITIZENS OF LONDON, this weekend on CSpan's Book TV, Saturday at 11 am (ET) and Sunday, 6 AM (ET).
Marj
-
Harold: Fascinating article. The lack of literacy among the workers seems to be universal. a recent Masterpiece Theater on PBS (Cranford) showed a young lad being secretly educated; when the Lady found out she immediately took steps to counter his opportunities. Literacy and limited enfranchisement, major obstacles to reform. The veneration of the upper class inbred over the centuries was so different in America though Washington was offered the title"King". Interesting that Queen Victoria was not mentioned, she was queen during so much of this time.
-
Regarding Ella's 2nd question:
Isn’t it true that "party loyalty" is necessary to get ahead in our own government, to get the power, to get the chairmanships of the "right" committees? David Margesson, the chief whip of the Tory party, a prime example, never doubted the rightness of his party; Would more doubts have made a difference?
Ellas 2ND question leads to another example of a U.S. version of English Governmental organization. Yes indeed both the U.S Senate and the House of Representatives have their party whips. The title is copied from the English precedent: as each party in both houses has its whip whose duties is much the same as in London. He or she is typically a member of some sonority who socializes well. The Whip’s jobs job just as in the London Parliament in the 1940’s is to bring party members to vote the party line on key issues. The whip will offer party related rewards for proper compliance or threaten withholding party rewards for noncompliance
In the U.S we really saw the whips in action during last month’s debate on the universal health care bill. The Whips for both parties were working overtime to turn out the party line vote. This can be a difficult task in situations like the health care legislation where the party line will in some border line constituencies cost individual members their reelection.
-
Off topic just a bit. I just finished a delightful book, THE UNCOMMON READER by Alan Bennett, a native U.K.; perhaps some of you know of him? This is about the Queen Elizabeth and one sentence is pertinent:
"The public must not be allowed to think the world could not be managed. That way lay chaos. Or defeat at the polls, which was the same. thing." - said the prime minister.
Couldn't resist it.
Just out of curiousity I looked up all the prime ministers of England - this is interesting:
http://www.answers.com/topic/prime-minister-of-the-united-kingdom
Some of those names are familiar to me, and I'm sure to you!
For example, Harold Macmillan. His experiences in WWI would make SAVING PRIVATE RYAN almost look sick - wounded four times, one time in the face, he refused medical treatment and went back to his battalion. Yet he is described as shy and introverted, a bookworm. He once said, "I always felt that, on the whole, the world was something alarming, and that people of all ages would be more likely to be troublesome than agreeable." What a hero and yet he opposed appeasement. "Like other veterans who later entered poliltics, he felt guilt about having survived, as well as 'an oblligation to make some decent use of the life that had been spared me' and to do something for our country." Also like other veterans, he had great contempt for those gentlement of England now abed who had not seen combat." -pg.19
Son of a partner of Macmillan & CO., the famous publishing house, I know you readers are familiar with it, but read the last few paragraphs of its history today - http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Macmillan-Inc-Company-History.html. Harold MacMmillan also opposed appeasement.
A quote from page 39: "But if it was nessary to prepare for war in order to maintain that peace, they (veterans) were ready to do so, unlike many advocates of appeasement. This fast gulf in experience and understanding (of war) would play a significant role in the parliamentary battle to come."
We should take each of these men and talk about them. Famous names in England, most of them come from notable political and financial backgrounds, the more modern of them familiar.
What is one of your favorites?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
In the Introduction Edward R. Murrow reporting from England in 1939 states: "the machine is out of control, we are all passengers on an express train traveling at high speed through a dark tunnel toward an unknown destiny. The suspicion recurs that the train may have no engineer, no one who can handle it." What are your thoughts on this statement, does it resonate with anything in the USA in your lifetime?
How did the USA public react to what was going on in Germany in the decade of the thirties? How did the public in England react?
How did the leaders, the political leaders, of both countries react?
Neville Chamberlain, how did he come to office, how did he stay in so long? Were you shocked by some of the facet of the man’s personality? What amazed you the most?
Duff Cooper, just one of the troubled young men, visited Germany in 1933 and upon returning home delivered a speech on the dangers of Nazism, only to be denounced as a “warmonger, by Lord Beaverbrook’s newspapers. s Cooper was just one of many. Does the public pay enough attention to world news or do we weary of news?
The difficulty of balancing ambition and conscience is as true today as it was in the decade of the thirties? What can influence politicians to use their conscience, their moral values?
Lady Violet Bonham Carter, a lifetime friend of Churchill and one that rivaled his command of language, believed that the duties of motherhood constrained her from entering the political arena. Had she lived today in England would she have believed differently and would she be a force in politics? Are women equal to men in Parliament today?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
OH, I JUST READ SOME POSTS, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
A big thanks to HAROLD and JACKIE, our local historians.
And thanks MARJ, I'll be watching, that book is on my list after a few more.....
-
I really like the way Lynn Olson writes! So, I just ordered her newest book. I also ordered her book about the Civil Rights.
For most of my life, I have respected, and admired Winston Churchill. This book gives me some information about him, that I am rather sorry to know. Other than not wanting the Empire to decrease in size, why was he so adamant about not giving India it's freedom? He had not been in India, for years, so had no personal experience with what was going on there.
I am appalled with both the class system, and the treatment of women. No wonder that until recent years, America protected our Presidents, from scandal. I was amused to learn about the Bonham Carter woman, who was such a close friend with C. I would love to have been present during some of their discussions. It appeared to me, that dear, old C, had no mistresses. What do the rest of you think?
In addition to C, I had only heard of McMillan and Eden. Most of the other names in the book, were unfamiliar to me. I think that I would enjoy reading a book about Chamberlain. I have wondered why he was so in favor of apeasement, but this book gives me information so that I can better understand it.
My great grandmother was fascinated with the romance of Edward and Mrs. Simpson. She kept a scrapbook of newspaper clippngs about there courship and marriage. I inheirited her scrapebook. This would be a good time to get it out, and read the articles, again.
I can certainly understand why those who were in the military during WWI didn't want to see England go to war with the Nazi. I have been watching a miniseries on the military channel, called "World At War". On the 6th of April this channel will show 3 of the series, about the beginning of the Nazi reign. There will be another shown on both April 9th and 10th.
Sheila
-
I too have been watching lots about WW1 on our Documentary Channel. Winston Churchill was one of the idiot Commanders as first Lord of the Admiralty that my grandfather talked about in WW1. We lost a whole generation of young men from a tiny tiny nation at Gallipoli and in the Trenches in France. It was partly because of this conflict and then WW2 that both NZ and Australia came of age and claimed their own identity. NZ did become a self governing colony of Britain in 1907 but it was not til 1947 that we had full and total independance from the Crown. However it was WW1 that defined us both as different from the Mother Country.
It is surprising that Winston became such a powerful and venerable figure during WW2. I believe it was solely his ability as an orator which enabled him to keep up morale both in the field of battle and at home that made him such a famous figure.
-
My favourite British PM is Clement Attlee--elected just after WW2 when the British public kicked out Churchill and the Labour Party swept into office. He nationalized health care and many other industries as well. So of-course the Unions gradually took over, but is that any worse than big business, I wonder.
Britain has a great history of oppressing the "heathen masses" in the empire but also espousing, very early, liberal causes, such as abolishment of slavery, universal education (Scotland did that one back in the 1700s), womens' rights (about 1920ish), universal health care (1945), gay rights (not sure--1970ish I think), used to have a non punitive policy for drug addicts--drugs on the NH--certainly cut down on drug related crime, not sure if it has it now, and no guns of-course!! No capital punishment since the 70s as well. Of-course much of Europe is the same and am not sure who actually did what first.
-
My eyes popped open when I read that Ronald Cartland was Barbara's brother. I never read any of her books (didn't then and still don't care for Romance novels) but I do remember the 60 minutes interview years ago. Did you know she wrote a book about her brother?
-
Barbara Cartland was also Princess Diana's step grandmama.
-
I think we all have a class system and its kind of burying your head into the sand to deny it. Our upper class are the rich. Particularly old money. We may not have the aristocracy but we certainly have class divide. Is it any different than that of Britain?
Carolyn
-
Slavers to avoid Royal Navy search took to flying the American flag. This led to Royal Navy stopping many American ships most who were notslavers. This was not the only reason for the war, but it was one of the causes.
HAROLD, thank you for that information. I don't recall being told this
reason for the Royal Navy stopping American ships, but it does seem a
valid reason. All we heard in American History class was that the English
were stopping American ships and seizing sailors, claiming they were
British. Which of course put Britain entirely in the wrong. A not unusual
slanting of history, right?
MARJ, I was fascinated to learn that the novelist Barbara Cartland was
Richard Cartland's sister and her writings helped finance his entry into
politics. Richard Cartland himself is someone I'd never heard of before
and a man that deserves to be remembered. I'm learning about a number of men and women in this book that I'm glad to 'know'.
I agree, SHEILA. I am most impressed with Lynne Olson’s analysis of the character and personality of all these men. She gives an even-handed insight into the strengths that allowed them to accomplish whatever they did, and the weaknesses that sometimes caused them to fail. We come to know more about each of them as human beings, and it makes the events all the more poignant.
As to Churchill and India, I was shocked by his extreme and bitter attack on Hindus. He had been a young officer in India in the 1890’s. I can’t help but think something must have happened there that left a deep wound. His violent attitude toward India and it’s people makes no sense to me in any other context. Has anyone here read his autobiography? If so, does he write about anything during his time in India that would explain this?
One difference, I think, KIWILADY. An aristocrat is always an aristocrat,
no matter the circumstances. The rich lose their status if they lose the
money.
-
From message #166
"I think we all have a class system and its kind of burying your head into the sand to deny it. Our upper class are the rich. Particularly old money. We may not have the aristocracy but we certainly have class divide. Is it any different than that of Britain?"
Good point Carolyn. Will a true classless society ever be possible? I don't think it has ever been achieved in history. Certainly not on a national level. It would take a complete overhaul of Human nature.
Also regarding the post about Clement Attlee administration his nationalization of the major U.K. industries led to some 30 years of economic stagnation and the long delay in England recovery from WW II. In the late 1970's there was still massive unemployment particularly among young people. It took Margaret Thatcher, finally a PM with real "spunk," to restore prosperity in the U.K.
Babi there was another reason for them to stop American Ships. The U.K. was in a continental war with Napoleon. The Royal Navy was blockading Napoleonic France that by 1812 was the entire European Continent. Some American Traders were trading with France. The US too has certainly used Navel blockades in all its wars.
-
OUR AUTHOR LAST SEPTEMBER ON BOOK TV: (She will be on BookTV today at 11 a.m.) She's young, isn't she?
LISTEN TO LYNNE OLSON
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764
-
Which of these men do I care about? Like BABI I was amazed by the Barbara Cartland connection. Olson seems to focus on MacMillan for I feel that I know more about him and his circumstances than any of the others. His stoic acceptance of his wife's infidelity may have made him the object of contempt to some but to me it shows unswerving loyalty and adherence to his principles. That I can personally remember him by name may color my opinion. Volume One of his six-volume autobiography, The Winds of Change, is not available at my library.
-
CAROLYN, I just watched Lynne Olson on BookTV and she gives Churchill much more credit than you in your statement "I believe it was solely his ability as an orator which enabled him to keep up morale both in the field of battle and at home that made him such a famous figure."
The program was very good, I think we should go on and discuss her new book CITIZENS OF LONDON. Sounds wonderful and I read a biography of Pamela Churchill Harriman sometime ago and knew a little of what she talked about. What an ambitious woman Pamela was!
DANA, as we get more into the book and the war and HITLER, (certainly we need to talk about this man more thoroughly than our author) you must keep us informed from the book you are reading. We need insights from other sources and thanks for your views on British laws; they have been ahead of the USA in many policies.
I smiled at HAROLD's statement: "It would take a complete overhaul of Human nature" to have a classless society. Indeed, even a classless community, even a church? And, as always, Harold is wonderful in his knowledge of history!!
Thanks, BABI, for your opinion on Churchill. Someone else has already commented that they are shocked at Churchill's attitude toward India. Churchill was avidly opposed to self rule for India, he believed it was in their best interest to stay within the Empire. When I think how quickly the British Empire dissolved after WWII it must have been a blow to all those Tories who thought the sun never set on the kingdom, so to speak.
Harold, Harold, probably can tell us more.
No, FRYBABE, I didn't know that Barbara Cartland wrote a book about her brother, I must look it up. He was the youngest rebel of them all (I liked that sly little smile on his picture, you have looked at the pictures in the book?). Olson began her book writing about him; when she had all these others to write why, do you suppose, she chose him to begin?
JACKIE, you bring up MacMillan's marital problems. What a story! His mother was an American from Indiana and although he said he admired her, he "never really liked her." She dominated him and then he had to marry a domineering woman! That would make another story wouldn't it? You say he wrote a six-volume autobiography! Wow! The author quoted one of the famous MItford sisters in saying that Harold was boring and they all tried not to sit next to him. Well, he was a bookish man. I'm a bookish woman and probably just as boring!
And then there is BOOTHBY - he's the guy on the cover with that other! The golden boy in politics, witty, attractive and the lover of MacMillan's wife. Well, Well, and the book says that it was Dorothy, the wife, who initiated it.
But how British to be discreet??? Really! How about the King abdicating the throne for his lover! Nothing discreet about that affair.
They were all Tories, weren't they? I must get these parties straight! Tories, Liberals - is that it?
-
I apologize for being lengthy, it's just that all your posts are so very interesting, I must talk about them.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR ENTHUSIASM, HAROLD AND I TRULY APPRECIATE IT.
-
Tories were (are?) the conservative party. I suspect maybe some of these young men should have been Liberals. But of course, you couldn't be a Liberal if your family had been Tory for generations. (Like my mother, from a small town in Ohio, said that everyone in town was a Republican except one Democrat. And he wasn't really a Democrat, he just said he was to annoy people!)
More practically, they had contacts (relatives) in the Tory party, and were given "safe seats" to run for. The Liberal party was alien territory.
-
I guess if you compared the USA definition of a liberal some of the Tories should have been liberals however if you were living here these young men would definately have been classified as Conservatives.
I still don't believe Churchill was a great tactician as far as warfare goes but I do believe he was a great Statesman and had the ability to encourage and to keep on side his allies. There were some great Generals amongst the army and his allies and I believe they were the men who most contributed on a tactical level to our Victory in WW2.
Its quite amazing that Churchill had such an ability to rally the troops and the people when all his life he suffered from depression. "The Black Dog" he called it.
Carolyn
-
Thanks, HAROLD. I love the small details that make history come alive,
so I sometimes miss the 'big picture'. What I need is a big chronology
that tells me what was going on throughout the world during each period,
so I can put it all in perspective.
ELLA & CAROLYN, isn’t it odd that a man regarded with suspicion and
distrust by both parties, considered disloyal and widely disliked, held
so many posts? I can only conclude that Churchill was so d---ed good at
any job he tackled that they couldn’t afford not to use him. But then
Olson writes, “He had a reputation for rashness and bad judgment…”.
I guess “extremely talented” covers a lot of sins.
I was astonished to learn that Parliament proposed to adjourn for summer vacation, with a war about to break out any day. This government’s prime minister had already been responsible for a shameful betrayal of the Poles. Now he proposes to go off on holiday and ignore a war that is expected to involve his own country? The more I learn about Chamberlain
the lower my opinion of him drops. Only the entrenched 'old boy' rules could have kept such
a man in the prime minister's post at such a difficult time.
-
Apparently it was only the "old boys" who knew the extent of the dangers Britain faced since the official line was one of optimism and belief in Britain's invulnerability.
-
HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE! WILL BE BACK TOMORROW
-
It is shocking how many of the upper class were enamoured with Germany under fascism. I suspect that is because the Upper Class realised change was on the way. They would not enjoy their privileged way of life in the same way for much longer. Servants were beginning to defect to work in industry and the unemployed were extremely restless. Some feared revolution. A dictator sounded like a good way to preserve the status quo.
Carolyn
-
Ch. 2 is all about the tradition of ‘playing the game’ that was drilled
into every generation of public school boys. The old school traditions,
frankly, are a horror. I hope all that hasn’t survived. It is hard to
go against the tenets that were absorbed during childhood.
It is a sad paradox, isn’t it, KIWI? On the one hand, the last war is so
recent that people are most reluctant to even consider another war. At
the same time, the upper classes seem to be wholly ignoring the fact that
their very recent enemy was the Germany they are now so happily endorsing.
I can’t help wondering if there is not some feeling that if they are good
buddies, the Germans will not attack them. After all, Hitler did consider
the blond English race to be Aryan. Their Jews, Hindus, Jamaicans, etc.,
etc., would have to go, of course.
Olson writes, “Most of the government ministers responsible for appeasement had never been in the trenches.” The veterans were “fervent in their desire for peace”, but believed “it was necessary to prepare for war in order to maintain that peace”. The Prime Minister and the appeasement-minded Tories put on their blinders and refused to see what
they didn't want to see.
-
Did you notice that our author kept quoting Harold Nicholson early in these chapters and I kept wondering how he came into the picture; on page 52 we learn a bit about his his wife. (Had you heard of her before?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Sackville-West
These Englishmen and women marry and stay married even though their marriages must have been very unhappy. Both the Macmillan marriage and the Nicholson marriage were examples of extraordinary marital infidelities, yes, extraordinary!
Let's talk for a moment about Nicholson. He was headed for a brilliant career in politics; he had helped in the Balfour Declaration which gave British support to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and also helped with the Paris Peace Conference. He was known for his expertise in foreign affairs and would have been an asset to Parliament at this time. His marriage almost cost him his career, but he was dependent upon her, isn't that strange. Here is their beloved castle and gardens, which is still famous throughout the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissinghurst_Castle_Garden
[edited] I wanted to add a postscript about Harold Nicolson that I read in Wikipedia. His diaries of this period were published by his son and are considered to be "one of the pre-eminent British diaries of the 20th century and an invaluable source on British political history from 1930 through the 1950s, particularly in regard to the run-up to World War II and the war itself: Nicolson served in high enough echelons to write of the workings of the circles of power and the day-to-day unfolding of great events from, as it were, a medium distance"
-
Oh, BABI, I just noticed your post and I would bet that those old school traditions have been changed, history has certainly taught them something? And, like you, I was amazed that the veterans of WWI were the ones who were against appeasement, they had known the horrors of the war and the deaths of their comrades and felt they owed it to them to fight for peace. Is that true today in America with our current war; these young men and women returning time and again for another tour of duty?
Hi CAROLYN, Change is difficult and particulary for the upper class a few of which you pointed out.
Is it true, then, that it is the younger generation, the younger folk, who push for change in government, in industry?
-
The following link is a Churchill time line Biography.
http://www.winston-churchill-leadership.com/timeline.html
The other day there was some comment relative to parliamentarians switching their party affiliation. True it was rare but Winston Churchill made two switches during his lifetime. Churchill had a very aristocratic beginning. His father was the second son of the Duke of Marlboro. Do you remember the PBS, “The First Churchill’s” series? His father died young of Syphilis. Don’t be shocked, it was not an unusual end for aristocrats in those days. There was a time when Winston Churchill was the heir presumptive to the succession, an event that had it occurred would have excluded Churchill from Commons. But the ageing reigning Duke remarried and bingo a son was born that cut Winston out of the line.
Churchill was most certainly born to be a member of the House of Commons. When he was first elected to Parliament in 1900 as a Conservative Queen Victoria was still on the throne. With just 4 years as a Conservative member Winston suddenly switched parties to join the liberals. With Liberal affiliation during WW I, he held High Cabinet posts as Home Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty. In the latter post he promoted an attack on Turkish positions guarding the Dardanelles . The operation was a military disaster resulting in his resignation from his post (but not from Parliament) and active duty with the army in France. This incident left him with a lingering reputation as a hot head incompetent.
Returning to Parliament in 1917 he remained a Liberal member with high cabined responsibilities until he was defeated for reelection in 1922. He returned to parliament in 1924 after again switching his party affiliation to the Conservatives. From that date he remained in parliament until 1964.
-
Thanks, HAROLD, for that history of Churchill; we will be talking much more about him in the weeks to come. In these early chapters, Churchill is certainly not a leader. He is very loyal to Chamberlain, a supporter of the King (good heavens!); he's forming committees and groups for all kinds of reasons. An editorial in a newspaper stated that Churchill had a flair for doing the wrong thing at the wrong moment.
LADY VIOLET BONHAM CARTER was a lifelong friend to Churchill, an ally. What do you think of her?
She believed in the traditional role of a wife and mother; being one of the few women in this book, with the exception of Clementine, to play the role.
Does motherhood constrain one from politics? 17 women in our Senate today I believe? Wouldn't it be nice if half of the Senate were women? How would it change?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Bonham_Carter,_Baroness_Asquith_of_Yarnbury#Political_career The preceding link concerns Lady Violet Bonham Charter’s Political Career. Apparently she never achieved election top Parliament , but she seems to have been well know in U.K political circles during the period described in our discussion book..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Astor,_Viscountess_Astor This is a summary of the Career of Lady Astor who was the first Woman to be elected to Parliament. Though she became something of a controversial figure she stuck around for many years. I remember hearing her name occasionally in the news during the 40l’s and 50’s
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M04.pdf This 10 page fact-sheet outlines the history of the campaigns to give women the vote and to allow them to stand as candidates for election to Parliament with some details on Women members who have served both as members and in Cabinet Posts, and leadership positions
-
Oh, all of that is so interesting, HAROLD.
Is it just you and I here in the room? Well, as seniors, we have seen women ascending slowly in the political arena and I think we are needed badly. More women are in higher education today I have read and, obviously, need to have their voices heard. We should read and discuss a biography of Margaret Thatcher, now there was some lady!
Meanwhile, someone posted about the "black dog" expression, I think it was Churchill who had bouts? I am reading a book by Josceline Dimbleby, a British author, entitled MAY AND AMY (Gaskell), they were upper class in the decade before the one we are discussing, but names keep cropping up that are familiar. And the "black dog" depression was mentioned by one of the characters, I think it was the painter Burne-Jones, a famous portraitist. So it was not original with Churchill.
I hope our participants are still around?
WHERE ARE YOU ALL?
-
'...he's forming committees and groups for all kinds of reasons.'
Isn't that interesting. The book is about those troublesome young men, but here's the old man very busy in the background. It seems to me he is the one to watch. Thanks for the Churchill timeline, Harold. What an amazing life.
-
I'm here reading, but have been busy the last few days. Certainly the picture of Churchill as a racist is shocking. As is the personal lives of some of the characters. How much of all of this was known at the time, I wonder.
The picture of V. Sackville-West certainly makes her seem like a strong character. Easier to imagine her husband letting her do what she wanted ans staying out of her way.
-
Thanks for the links Harold. I didn't know that Lady Astor was in Parliament. I just thought she was one of those high society colorful characters. Lady Violet Bonham Carter seems to me to have been a high energy person.
-
I'm finding the descriptions of each of the "troublesome young men" very interesting and informative. I have little knowledge of most of those people. What struck me with force is how most of the press protected the government, not only by witholding information from the public but sometimes by inserting their own views as fact in the articles they published. I can feel my anger rising as I read those sections of the book.
-
My ears (eyes) perked up at the mention of Lady Violet Bonham Carter, since I am a fan of the actress Helena Bonham Carter. Helena's father is the son of English Liberal politician Sir Maurice Bonham Carter and renowned politician and orator Violet Bonham Carter, whose father was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, H. H. Asquith (1908–1916). It seems that there is mention in the book so far of several women who were instrumental in supporting and, even, prodding some of the men to greater action.
-
Hello, I'm new to Senior Learn and would like to join this discussion.
I've got the book and read this week's chapters but am still working my way through the posts.
The book is a marvellous, comprehensive and coherent treatment of a crucial episode in history which ties together so much which hitherto has been a catalogue of scarcely related incidents.
As an Australian I live under a parliament based on the Westminster system. The Australian version has three separate and independent levels of government - Federal, State and Local Councils.
This system is a constitutional monarchy in which the Queen vests Vice-Regal powers and responsibilities in the office of the Governor-General.
Although often the role of the Governor- General is seen essentially as ceremonial this is not the case as the power of veto is exercised on occasion such as in 1975 when as Governor-General Sir John Kerr
dismissed the incumbent Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.
Fundamentally it is a two party system plus independent MPs who sometimes hold the balance of power.Parliament is structured with a House of Representatives (like the British Commons) and a Senate which acts as a House of Review ( similar in principle to The House of Lords).
The Prime Minister is appointed by his party and The Speaker of The House acts as the chairman and maintains order during debate.
-
ELLA, I was curious about Sissingham Gardens, too, and found this great
site with many lovely pictures of the gardens.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-sissinghurstcastlegarden/w-sissinghurstcastlegarden-photo_gallery.htm
What I’m reading about Lady Violet Bonham Carter fascinates me. I want
to know more about this woman. It appears she has left diaries and letters
as well as two autobiographies of Churchill. I wonder how available any
of these are now? I don’t see any of them listed in the bibliography.
Lantern Slides - The Diaries and Letters of Violet Bonham Carter,
1904-1914, eds. Mark Bonham Carter and Mark Pottle (Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
1996)
Champion Redoubtable - The Diaries and Letters of Violet Bonham Carter,
1914-1945, ed. Mark Pottle (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998)
Daring to Hope - The Diaries and Letters of Violet Bonham Carter, 1945-1969, ed. Mark Pottle (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000)
And good morning, WEND. Glad to meet a new participant. I'm sure you'll enjoy the
'lively discussions we have at SeniorLearn.
-
WEND, A HEARTY WELCOME TO YOU!
We are so happy to hear you like the book and doubly happy that you are from Australia; another parliamentary govenment.
Can you expound on this statement a bit: - Although often the role of the Governor- General is seen essentially as ceremonial this is not the case as the power of veto is exercised on occasion such as in 1975 when as Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the incumbent Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.
Is The Governor-General appointed by the Queen? To serve for how long?
Yes, JONATHAN, that old man is lurking in the background. Does this remind you of our discussion of TEAM OF RIVALS by Doris Kearns Goodwin, which purportedly was about those surrounding Lincoln, but we couldn't get away from that tall guy. He was dominant as is Churchill.
MARCIE, the actress, Helena Bonham Carter? Stage, screen? What has she played in; English movies? Yes, that business of suppressing the news is amazing to read and we will be discussing more about that in our next 5 chapters! Thank you for your post!
FRYBABE! We all smiled at the "high society colorful characters" that you mentioned. Don't you think Americans are awed by the British; old ancestry, ladies-in-waiting, the drama of the Queen and palaces!
Hi JOANK: What are your reasons for thinking Churchill was a racist? Is he portrayed as such in this book? Interesting!
Today is our last day for discussing the first five chapters!! And here in these chapters are the young men (some not so young) that define the book.
We haven't mentioned Boothby at all - that fellow on the front cover. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIM? And his future?
Nor have we mentioned ANTHONY EDEN. A man who was supposed to lead the country and why didn't he?
-
Gordon Brown has asked QEII to dissolve Parliament and there will be an election in 4 weeks. How timely for our discussion. BBC World News on NPR had a special about this at 2 AM our time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/
As we learn more about parliamentary government I am envious about a system which does not require its members to face the ordeal of campaigning every two years, which in practice means constantly. Seems as if the money raising is done by the party, another burden our pols endure. There are many aspects of parliamentary government which appeal to me.
-
Chapter 5, “I Lack The Spunk.” Though Anthony Eden spent more than 30 years in Parliament, our Author concludes he never really felt at home there. As Lynn Olson pointed out, “he much preferred the genteel patrician world of the Foreign Office where he spent two years Foreign Secretary post.”
Eden’s anti appeasement leanings made his tenure in Foreign Secretary post increasingly difficult in the face of the PM’s increasing commitment to an appeasement policy. Finally in Feb 1937 after Chamberlain announced he intended to begin direct negotiations with Mussolini, Eden resigned. Just hours before Eden.s resignation speech, Churchill sent Eden a note urging him “ him not to shrink from taking Chamberlain on, but when Eden made his resignation speech he offered no call to battle, no ringing denunciation of appeasement.” It was just a polite our opinions differ so I resign.
It was up to Bobberty Crainborne who also resigned his cabinet post at the same time to make the case that Eden failed to make. “Chamberlain’s determination to pursue talks with Italy, he said was nothing but a surrender to blackmail. Lynn Olson summed the situation in these words , “Anthony Eden had no desire to bring the government down. Rebellion was not in his blood. Years later he wrote in his diary “I truly hate the game of politics, not because I am better than other politicians, God forbid, but because I lack spunk.””
This brings us to the question where else has the lack of spunk in political leaders, not just in the U.K. but in the U.S. and other Countries figured in history” If I get the time I will cite events in our revolution where indecision or social diversion by British Generals contributed to the success of the Revolution. Do any of you have comments on this subject?
-
Welcome, Wend! I'm glad that you'll be sharing your knowledge and perspectives as an Australian in this discussion.
Harold, "a lack of spunk" seemed to figure in several of the potential leaders for Britain during this time. It seems that many were, understandably, in fear for their careers due to the extremely strong political machine of the existing government. But they also seemed to be under the influence of their upbringing where certain things "just weren't done" or said.
Ella, there is a filmography for Helena Bonham Carter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Bonham_Carter#Films. She mostly is in "period pieces"-- several based on novels by E. M. Forster. She also plays a great villainess in the Harry Potter series.
-
Here is a site on the U.K. General Election now scheduled for May 6th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
Perhaps we can hold this discussion over for comment relative the results after they become available after the Election?
-
I got a book out of the library yesterday Titled Churchills Secret Weapons. I wanted to see how much Churchill was involved in tactics during the conflict. Its very interesting so far and I will post a short precis of anything I feel is of interest and gives more insight into Churchhill as Commander in Chief during WW2.
Hi to our new Aussie poster.
Carolyn
-
WEND: WELCOME, WELCOME!
I had no idea there were so many variations on the parliamentary system of government. This discussion has really made me think about these variations. Obviously, all of these systems have been robust in preserving democracy, but each with it's own strengths and weaknesses.
I'm confused. The schedule says we discuss the first part through April 8. But now the 6th is the last day? Either way, I'd better get started on part 2.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
Is it true that one must have the ability to be an excellent speaker to be a leader, regardless of your intellectual abilities?
There were two possible leaders during this year, 1939 ( Eden and Churchill) .Why did not either one of them want to challenge Chamberlain?
Why was Czechoslovakia important to both Germany and England?
“We decide what to do and then send for the newspapers and tell them to sell it to the public.” Neville Chamberlain’s policies kept the public ignorant of the growing crisis. Did this, in the end, help or hurt the British public? How?
How was the growing international crisis in Europe treated by the press or the president in America during this period?
Was Chamberlain fully cognizant of the disparity between Britain’s armed forces and Germany’s soldiers? If so, was he correct to try to find a way to end the dispute with Germany?
Had England declared war on Germany in 1938, what would have been the result?
Chamberlain wrote to his sister after his visit to Hitler in1938 that Hitler was a man who could be true to his word . Is it a quality of leadership to correctly judge the character of a foreign leader? Can you think of any instances in history where such a quality would have been beneficial to America?
When Chamberlain returned from Munich he was received by the King, Queen of England on the balcony to waving crowds, the first time a ruling monarch had allowed a commoner to be acknowledged from the balcony of Buckingham Palace. Has this ever occurred since?
Duff Cooper resigned from the Government in protest over Chamberlain’s agreement with Hitler? Was this the right thing to do? Is it ever?
Do you feel the author is unduly harsh in her criticism of Chamberlain? Is it wrong to attempt to avoid a war, a reconciliation, in order to save lives of your countryman?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
OH, YOU ARE RIGHT, JOANK! My error, we do have through the 8th to discuss all these troubled young men.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR THE POSTS. I DO SO ENJOY READING YOUR COMMENTS!
Anthony Eden may have lacked the spunk, as Harold quoted, but he looks the part. Doesn't he have a determined look on his face in that picture with Churchill? And that lovely photo of him with his wife; she could have stepped right into a fashion magazine, proper hat tipped just so and the white gloves, even a posie in her lapel. I love that picture.
"Anthony Eden was to Britons in the 1930's what John F. Kennedy was to Americans in the early 1960's; a handsome, glamorous war hero who seemed the embodiment of hope and idealism in a troubled time."
Unlike Kennedy, however, who seemed right at home among the politicans, the best of them, Eden hated the "partisan of the place, the constant intrigues and infighting."
Isn't it fascinating what makes a leader? What is it in one person who rises to the pinnacle of power?
Setting aside ambition, it seems to me that one qualification of a leader is eloquence, not in appearance, certainly, although that helps today with television in every home; but eloquence of speech, and throw in wit and humor which Churchill and Roosevelt had in abundance and you have unforgettable figures. Of course, it also seems that if they are leading their country in times of stress they will never be forgotten.
Yes, we will be very interested in that U.K. election; it's been on the news in America. Personally, I don't recall P.M Gordon Brown being in the news lately, but I do remember Tony Blair fondly. By the way, I loved the names of those constituencies, marvelous English names.
Why did our author, do you think, call these men "troublesome?"
-
I must say I have been enjoying all the comments & posts that add to my reading of this amazing book.
I was surprised to read some of the quotes on 'democracy' provided in thru Harold's reference to the 'timeline-Winston Churchill' site--in particular one by Winston, himself-
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill
Chamberlain who seemed like a good, upstanding man seemed to need to change his 'value set' when he became Prime Minister--what with his 'my way or the highway' attitude. Did he rise in his career to incompetence as in 'the Peter Principle'??? I'm sure nos t having 'walked in his shoes' there was his own rationalization for his behaviours & stern leading of his government--but he was pushing his government's democracy outside the limits I think! Scary stuff!!!
Read a book last year 'Bodyguard of Lies' by Anthony Cave Brown--captivating book book--about the alcandelescent affairs of the allied countries, mainly British, American, Canadian efforts --well worth the read I thought
wish I contributed more to your discussion, but I never quite know
where to quite jump in
how glad I am that I found your group
Deb
-
HELLO DEB! And we are happy to have you!
JUMP IN ANYWHERE, WE ALL DO!!! WE ARE STILL ON THE FIRST FIVE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK, AND ANY COMMENTS YOU HAVE TO MAKE ARE SO WELCOME!
DEB commented about Chamberlain's stern views, so let us begin a conversation about Chamberlain I'll quote a bit from the book:
"Chamberlain, who was sixty-eight when he became prime minister, was very much a product of the Victorian age-he was in his thirties when Queen Victoria died-and was always uncomfortable with modern inventions and ideas. He had never been in a plane before his dramatic visits to Hitler in Septermber 1938, didn't like cars and phones, and never took to the fountain pen, preferring to write his letters and speeches with a plain steel nib..........Shy, self-conscious, and aloof, he had few friends."
I WAS ASTONISHED TO READ THAT!
WEREN'T YOU? WHAT FASCINATED YOU ABOUT CHAMBERLAIN?
-
WEND, welcome, and do tell us about your choice of personal quote. Are
you a pilot?
In our current history 'lesson', I find myself fervently wishing there
had been someone who could dismiss Prime Minister Chamberlain!
Eden, so promising a man, but it's beginning to seem all show and no substance. It seems
to me he enjoys the adulation, but isn't willing to take a stand. He really let his friends and
supporters down.
I note the quote by a ‘high-ranking army officer’, ie., “The tragedy is that there are always so many plausible reasons for doing nothing.” So true. A very human trait. Unfortunately, it seems to apply to far too many souls in the pre-WWII crisis. Chamberlain, Eden, et al.
-
More on British Spunk: Looking back on history to the time of the American Revolution there are may have been occurrences where the absence of leadership spunk was a decisive factor. Early in the War British General William Howe during the siege of Boston failed to occupy and fortify the strategically placed Dorchester Heights, a failure that later made the British evacuation of Boston necessary. In his organization of the evacuation Howe loaded some 10,000 British troops plus 1100 Boston Tories on ship taking them to Canada for R&R for the troops and political safety and new settlement for the Tories. Had he left the Tories to their fate in Boston and taken his troops directly to then completely undefended New York the road to Philadelphia would have been undefended. Such a determined attack through New York to Philadelphia might have captured the Continental Congress and the Revolutionary government and ended the rebellion.
Instead the movement by Howe’s successor General Henry Clinton to New York was delayed until a sizable rebel defense was in place. It took a bloody campaign through Long Island, New York and New Jersey ending with the coming of winter. At that point the British paused for a warm winter rest while its Commander, General Clinton, returned to London for the social season. This sudden British abandonment of the campaign gave Washington the opportunity to begin a winter campaign to cross the Delaware and attack Trenton. This operation resulted in a much needed American Victory in the Battle of Trenton.
I suppose these British decisions might be attributed to a lack of the spunk necessary to assure the actions required for the suppression of the rebellion. Anyway we will certainly note more on the Spunk of Anthony Eden during the 4th week of our discussion when in the 1950's Eden was P.M.
-
Ella, you asked about Bobbety. For those of us who have read about QEI. saying "he was a Cecil" says it all. Knowing he is Eden's best friend is a comfort for he seems to have his share of spunk and more. The wonder is, what would have been the result absent Bobbety? Seems the actors needed each other, no single player was adequate to the task of uniting the loyal opposition within the Tories. I feel the need to outline the first five chapters, there is so much data packed in to each page.
-
Regarding Current U.K. Politics: I use to listen to Tony Blair’s half hour weekly Questions from Members of Parliament when they were rebroadcast Sunday night by C-span up until last year. Blair was a real master of fielding questions from members, both from his own Labor Party and the party opposite (as the Parliamentarians refer to members of the opposite party). At times for me it was really entertaining almost like standup comedy. Gordon Brown, Blair’s replacement was nowhere near his equal. He was in comparison a real boor. I suppose that is the reason C-span dropped the broadcast last year. The Conservative leader during Blair’s term was no better the Gordon Brown, but the Current Conservative leader, David Cameron who is nowhere near Blair’s equal, is perhaps a bit better than his recent predecessor’s.
-
regarding Chamberlain
his activities before being P.M. were birdwatching, reading, fishing, listening to Beethoven, gardening, reading Shakespeare
pg 90--'With his family and close friends, he could sensitive, affectionate, charming, even playful on occasion. ....those qualities were not on display when he moved Downing Street...he seemed determined to outdo his father in toughness and outshine his half brother in formulating foreign policy, despite his lack of expertise in that area.'
***********
I saw all of Chamberlain's activities, and traits prior to being P.M. placid, pleasant solitary along with the traits mentioned when he was among friends...then when he obtained the position of power as P. M. it appeared to me he moved above his democratic party to ride over them and push for his opinions & ideals as being the way it was to be....
before his P.M. term he was an impressive social suggesting to me an awareness of the needs of his constituents and the need to buttress the powers of government to provide for them.
following being elected he appeared to refuse to listen to his caucus...& I recall it mentioned that a number of British thought the idea of a dictatorship might be what Britain needed...???was Chamberlain one of those????
-
Deb; I don't think Chamberlain ever thought of himself as a dictator, certainly not in the sense of Adolf Hitler. Yet a P.M. with a large majority of his party to back him certainly wielded a great amount of power. He could certainly get his measures through parliament and was certainly willing to use the whip system to keep junior members with the party line. I will also add that in the U.S. system a President with a large majority of the Congress would seem equally powerful
And mrssherlock relative to Bobbety Cranborne, you are right that he showed no lack of spunk in the debate in the spring of 1937 over Chamberlain's opening of direct British negotiations with Mussolini on the issue of Italy's aggression against Ethiopia. Boberty's Resignation speech was the one that really took Chamberlain to task on his appeasement of the Italian dictator. This is what was expected from Eden. Yet all Eden offered was a mild statement for the record that he was opposed to Chamberlain's action on the subject.
Incidentally the Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie was he first Sovereign disposed by an Axis power from WWII, He made a heart rendering appearance before the League of nations pleading for world sympathy. He was also the first disposed sovereign to be restored after British Forces from Africa liberated his Country in 1942.
-
As we learn more about parliamentary government I am envious about a system which does not require its members to face the ordeal of campaigning every two years, which in practice means constantly. Seems as if the money raising is done by the party, another burden our pols endure.
I don't know if it's still true, but in England there used to be strict limits on what you could spend on your campaign, and the amount was modest. That meant that you didn't have to be beholden to special interests to get enough money to outpublicize your opponents. Of course there was a tradeoff, you were totally beholden to your party even to get a chance to run.
-
Our Governor General has the same powers as the Australian PM. Its an unprecedented event to dismiss a PM via the GG. I know the news of the Australian GGs actions filled our newspapers for weeks here in NZ.
Carolyn
-
I think there may be a change of Govt in Britain. The decision to go into Iraq angered many. The decison about Afghanistan was thought to be justified but many felt the invasion of Iraq was an illegal action. Tony Blair lost his popularity because of the Iraq invasion. The public noted the Conservative party argued hotly against the action.
The New Labour party also allowed an influx of Eastern European immigrants which was another unpopular decision. A lot of the British feel their way of life is under threat and are immigrating to other Commonwealth Countries. I have spoken to some of the new British immigrants out here and they say their country has been ruined. I don't know if this is true or not but they are very passionate in their views.
-
Well, I started in late, and am still in the middle of chapter 5, but I'd better start talking. I'm really enjoying this book--the good writing and organization make it very accessible and enjoyable, and it's about a time and place that I care about. Thanks for choosing it, Ella and Harold.
Next, I'm glad to find old "acquaintances" Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West here. His diaries, edited by his son Nigel, came out in 3 volumes in 1966-8. (I think he collaborated with his son in the project.) I read them at the time, but I remember more of the sociology than the politics, and I guess you'll forgive me if my memory is pretty spotty 40 years on. Vita was a strong character too, eventually unwilling to play the role of "embassy wife", thus messing up his diplomatic career--maybe a good thing if he plays a crucial role here. She was a successful, widely acclaimed writer. I tried her magnum opus, the long poem "The Garden", but found it totally unreadable, by me at least.
Their marriage was hugely unconventional, with multitudinous infidelities, mostly homosexual. Although the tumult would probably drive most of us bananas, they nonetheless had a really strong lifelong bond of emotion and companionship, and Harold never recovered from his wife's death. I can recommend Nigel Nicolson's "Portrait of a Marriage", 1973, which describes this.
Virginia Woolf was one of Vita's lovers, and her novel "Orlando" is an allegory of Vita's life.
-
All of these men were ambitious and hesitant to put their careers on the line. Nothing seems to have changed. What drives someone to have the courage to step up no matter the consequences??
-
WEND, A HEARTY WELCOME TO YOU!
We are so happy to hear you like the book and doubly happy that you are from Australia; another parliamentary govenment.
Can you expound on this statement a bit: - Although often the role of the Governor- General is seen essentially as ceremonial this is not the case as the power of veto is exercised on occasion such as in 1975 when as Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the incumbent Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.
Is The Governor-General appointed by the Queen? To serve for how long?
Thanks for the welcome everyone; I am enjoying the discussion a great deal.
The dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam occurred under the most blatant abuse of governmental power and the Senate refused to pass the supply bill to fund the ongoing functioning of his government.
The appointment of our Governor General is made by the Queen subject to her acceptance of the recommendation of our government of the day.The normal length of term is five years.
-
WEND, welcome, and do tell us about your choice of personal quote. Are
you a pilot?
In our current history 'lesson', I find myself fervently wishing there
had been someone who could dismiss Prime Minister Chamberlain!
No Babi I wasn't a pilot.
The quotation was an epigraph in an engineering hand book from about fifty years ago. Although it was written in 1663 it has a contemporary tone and appealed to me.
Regarding the capability to dismiss Chamberlain (also known at the time as "j'aime Berlin" ) this power existed, and still does, vested in the monarch were he/she to accept such a recommendation from the House.
-
HAROLD, as British officers are traditionally from the aristocratic class,
I can't help but feel that many of them simply didn't take the American
'army' seriously. And then, of course, being accusomed all their lives to
pleasing themselves, many were prone to take off for R&r or the social
season when their duties became too onerous.
I feel the need to outline the first five chapters, there is so much
data packed in to each page.
Amen!, JACKIE.
Another literary side note. The Earl of Longford and his biographer wife
Elizabeth had eight children and three of them were also writers. I’ve
heard of Antonia Fraser. She wrote mysteries and was married to Harold
Pinter. Thomas Pakenham apparently wrote prize-winning books on Victorian
history and trees. Rachel Billington was apparently also a prolific
writer, but I’m not familiar with anything she’s written.
Thanks for answering my question, WEND. (I love the "j'aime Berlin" re.
Chamberlain.) And since the Queen's action to dismiss the PM depended on
a recommendation from the Tory-controlled House...that wasn't going to
happen.
I confess I am puzzled as to why a government advisor on labor relations and the head of the British Civil Service would take it on themselves to voice ‘their disapproval’ of the Foreign
Office policies. Why weren’t they just told, politely of course, that they were meddling in
affairs that were none of their business, not to mention far out of their area of expertise.
-
I've got Thomas Pakenham's books on trees, left me by a friend. They consist of pictures or magnificent old trees, with surprisingly entertaining comments about their history or relevance. Another of the Pakenhams was Violet, who married novelist Anthony Powell, and is a major character in Powell's monumental 12 volume novel "A Dance to the Music of Time".
-
The importance of Edward VIII's shocking action, proposing to Wallis Simpson while King, would have toppled Baldwin's government and his brother, George VI, had little base of political power, if any, and could have acted to remove Chamberlain only at the request of Parliament. Rabid Tories to the right of them, a vacuum to the left of them, it must have looked impossible.
-
The last major international event included in this week’s discussion schedule was the German occupation of Austria. The occurred on March 12 1937 when Hitler’s troops just goose steeped in. There was no military resistance. Hitler made a triumphant visit with the approving cheers of the Nazi element of the population while the Gestapo rounded up Jews and many dissidents. Do you remember the “Sound of Music plot.”
In London another wave of war fear swept the nation, and Lord Halifax who had replaced Eden as Foreign Secretary issued a statement stating that perhaps the time had come to put the nation’s defense establishments on a war time footing. Chamberlain, however, hastened to put an end to the war panic with an assuring statement that Britain would not become involved on the issue. This led to a Labor party motion in the House of Commons to censor the P.M. This motion failed when it came to a vote because of the overwhelming Conservative Majority. Churchill and most of the Troublesome Young men group abstained, but these abstentions had no real effect on the outcome.
-
It's only with hindsight that we see Chamberlain as such a pathetic figure. If he had lived he might have received the Nobel Peace Prize. He tried so hard. The country was proud of him. Even the king did an unheard of thing when he had Chamberlain appear with him at the window at Buckingham Palace. Eden must have resigned in a huff, no doubt feeling that as Minister of Foreign Affairs he should have been consulted in the negotiations with Hitler. But he left quietly, without burning any bridges.
Someone said that Churchill was not exactly a military genius, but did excel in statesmanship. Where is the evidence for that? He hardly had the wherewithal. England was weak and demoralized. Pacifists abounded. Some rushed off to Spain to fight for the republicans, George Orwell among them, I believe. As well as one of the Mitford sisters. Two other Mitfords sat at Hitler's feet. And how about the those Cambridge spies swearing allegiance to the Stalin? Making workable alliances in basket-case Europe was an impossibility. Churchill went for the only grand alliance on the horizon. Bring America back into play. Britain's only hope. But that comes later, after he has become prime minister.
-
Here is a web time line type outline of the 1930's event leading to the
Sept 1939 beginning of the War; http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm
If the above link fails, Copy it and past it iafter the file Open location commands from your browser. or Ella perhaps you can make it interactive. <
Of all the major new items from these days, my first hazy awareness of international new was the 1936 Illness and death off England’s King George V followed by the succession of Edward VIII and his subsequent abdication. I was only 9 years old when these events began to unwind. I also have a very vague recollection of the news when Hitler militarized the Rhine border with France and his March 1938 annexation of Austria. The latter recollection is a bit clearer. My memory of the Czechoslovakian crisis that followed later in 1938 is much clearer.
-
I became acquainted with Antonia Fraser when I read her book about Mary Queen of Scots. She was then still married to Sir Hugh Fraser. Since I didn't keep up with her works, I had no idea that she was writing fiction nor that she later married Harold Pinter (never read him at all).
-
Harold: Excellent! One needs to see the whole context to fully understand the factors weighing in on the decisions made by Chamberlain, Churchill, and the TYM gang.
-
The difficulty of balancing ambition and conscience is as true today as it was in the decade of the thirties? And you ask yourself, while reading this book, what makes a leader? Why didn’t some of these talented, ambitious young men seize the moment?
DEB stated that Chamberlain following his election appeared to refuse to listen to his caucus. Thank you, DEB, for that comment and it leads to the question does power corrupt? What does the power of office do to a man? That question is being asked of our own president at the moment.
WELCOME, PATH, and your post about strict limits on campaigning in Britain is an idea whose time has come in America, don’t you think? It’s out of bounds and must somehow be controlled, but then again you are beholden to the party. There seems to be no answer.
Wasn’t it delightful in Olson’s book to read of a number authors we have known ; reporters also. We’ll read of more as we delve into later chapters. I think the research into this period must have been fun for our author. I note that previously she wrote THE MURROW BOYS so she was familiar with many of these reporters during this period. I want to read that book.
Thanks, CAROLYN, for your post and I must say that immigration is a problem for many countries, but not for New Zealand? Be careful, we may all just rush over there!!!!!
KIDSAL, you stated that these men were ambitious and hesitant. Those two descriptive words for a politician are fascinating to mull over. I’m still mulling, what a conversation that would make!
Thank you for your comments, WEND. It seems that your Prime Minister accomplished a lot in office. Here is a website devoted to him:
http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx
Chamberlain, what to make of him? JONATHAN, being a bit ironic here, stated that he tried so hard to make peace he could have in another age won the Nobel Prize. He just chose the wrong guy to negotiate with, much to his sorrow, one has to feel a bit sick about the whole thing.
And HAROLD reminded us that Chamberlain tried over and over again to put an end to the war panic that at times boiled up among the public.
It’s all fascinating history and THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE COMMENTS. THEY ARE SO WELCOME, SO INTERESTING TO READ.
We will be putting more questions in the heading for you consideration as we read Chapters 6 through 10. And did you notice the Link to Lynne Olson on C-Span that is in the heading?
-
Hitler played a strange role in history. He certainly had a great historic sense. Every bit as great as Churhill's. Both talked in terms of a thousand years. Cautious Churchill added an if. If the Empire lasts a thousand years, this will still remain her finest hour. Hitler's Reich...lasted all of twelve years, ending in a Wagnerian hour. Still, he was in the process of forging a nation. As nations go, Germany was and is in its infancy. In quick order Hitler had Germany on the move. He was admired and envied by many at first. Germans in the Rhineland, the Sudetenland, and even Austria must have been excited to be part of a resurgent Germany.
-
Chamberlain may have tried hard, and was certainly a totally honorable man, but he was scarcely safe out. Imagine being indignant and unbelieving at the thought that Mussolini could be so ungentlemanlike as to read his (Chamberlain's) letters. People like that shouldn't try to deal with dictators.
You're right about Orwell fighting in the Spanish Civil War, Jonathan, and it was a crucial experience for him. He fought with a splinter group, which was later suppressed by the more mainstream communists, and his experience of the truth-bending, hiding of facts, and outright lies about events he had personally experienced, influenced his writing for the rest of his life.
-
I agree with those of you who have noted that Chamberlain was an honorable man. His problem was that he was working for peace when there was no peace. It takes more than one side to make peace, and with Hitler a peace required total capitulation.
Here is an English history trivia question some of you might answer. Name the last English Sovereign who was a physical on the scene participant in a major wartime battle? What is the battle's name?
-
Harold, you would pose a nifty question like that when I'm trying to pack. I assume that sitting it out in Buckingham Palace during WWII when the Germans were dropping bombs on you doesn't count, though it's why George VI was such a good wartime king; he took the same risks as his subjects. Without time to look it up, I'm guessing back to the Stuarts.
I'm off to Portland, OR tomorrow to visit 2 daughters, 2 SILs, and one grandson. If I don't sleep the whole time on the plane, I'll read the next section and make the flow sheet that, as Jackie points out, is sorely needed. I'll have internet access while there.
-
Jonathon - Churchill would never have got the people on his side if he had not been a great Statesman. He was not only respected by the Brits but by the Troops from the Commonwealth. My father despite his ordeal of having served (in destroyers, minesweepers and submarines) for all the years of the War has never spoken a harsh word about him. He rallied the people and I suspect he was extremely persuasive with the allies. I am myself not an admirer of Churchill but do have to give him the credit for keeping the civilians and troops motivated to continue even in the hardest of times. He had the gift of the gab as my grandfather would say. I am fascinated by the man but cannot say he is the politician I admire most in recent history. Britain fought alone for quite a time and it would have been quite a job to keep the troops and the population on his side. I have to give him that.
I believe Churchill learnt from his mistakes in WW1.
As for Chamberlain I remember my grandfather saying that although he personally had vowed to never fight in another WW he was annoyed with Chamberlains appeasement tactics as he felt Hitler was an extremely dangerous and power drunk dictator bound on World domination. He hated Hitler with a passion. He signed up for our Home Guard immediately war was declared. ( he was too old to be conscripted)
-
Was it Henry V at Agincourt?
-
He was an honorable man. So were they all.
'People like that (Chamberlain) shouldn't try to deal with dictators.'
So why, Pat, was Ronald Cartland, egged on by Churchill, going on and on in the House about Chamberlain being a dictator? He must have seemed awfully tough to the young rebels. He may not have gone at it in the right way, but he did try to negotiate England out of the looming crisis. Without even consulting Foreign Affairs. No wonder that Eden resigned and went off for a holiday on the Mediterranean, where like Nero, he fiddled while Rome burned.
I believe, Kiwi, that Churchill was a very great man. A great wartime leader. He may have saved western civilization. He certainly saved England. I take a statesman to be a person who can order the affairs of the world in an orderly fashion. Can he win the battle? I'm not so sure. But he wouldn't insist on Unconditional Surrender. As a New Zealander you feel the hurt of Gallipoli. As a Canadian I feel that way about Dieppe in August 1942. Some of us put that military blunder at Churchill's doorstep.
-
Was it Henry V at Agincourt?
Later than that, Richard III came to a sticky end at Bosworth Field.
Maybe among us we can zero in on it.
-
Of course, with Unconditional Surrender, Churchill meant to be magnanimous after the Victory he set as his war aim. A great leader. I woud give him a light for his cigar any time.
-
Of course, Pat. But I just had to get my hero in there.
-
No, I was not thinking of the London Blitz. This was a regular Military battle between regular opposing military opponents in a well known historical event occurring later than those named so far.
-
Certainly, Jonathan. Can't forget St Crispian's day and our valiant English longbowmen.
-
It sounds like Churchill was tthe right man at the right time and place. Whatever his weaknesses, he had what was needed at that particular moment: the ability to rally people.
-
I think Lord Halifax could have had a successful career as an ad writer.
How much more vaguely could he have stated that the English public wanted
action on preparing for war. Instead, public opinion was 'moving in the
direction of’ placing the defense of the country ‘more nearly’ on a war
footing. I was immediately reminded of the advertisements for OTC
medications that ‘aid in the relief of’. Look closely; it doesn’t even
actually say the med. will give relief.
Earlier in the book someone said that Churchill wasn’t a good military
strategist; he just had good generals out in the field. Leo Amery
disagrees, describing him as a ‘brilliant military strategist’. It's
hard to know whose opinion to believe. Anyone here a military history
buff?
It is disturbing to learn how the British people were kept in ignorance
of the real situation, thanks to a coalition of the ‘good old boys’ in
politics and journalism. One of them, Lord Lothian, actually said,
“We decide what to do, and then send for the newspapers and tell them to
sell it to the public.” Chamberlain, reportedly, flat out lied about what
ever he didn’t want known.
The same reporter who made that accusation also commented on the radical
change in Chamberlain’s personality. At times his behavior seemed out of
control to me, from what Olson records here. The more I read about
Chamberlains’ behavior, the more I suspect he may have been seriously ill.
Petulance, outbursts, delusional thinking, extreme sensitivity to even the
suggestion of criticism. A storm is blowing up and the Captain of the
ship is bonkers! I don't think 'tough' is the word for Chamberlain,
JONATHAN. He was entrenched, and he refused to listen to anyone else's
opinions.
-
OH, THANK YOU ALL FOR SUCH A GREAT CONVERSATION!
BABI, I think JONATHAN and HAROLD qualify as military history buffs. Harold has posed a question about a certain battle and Jonathan talks as though he knew every battle and who was in it of WWII. I did look up Dieppe, JONATHAN, and I can understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
There are new questions in the heading and BABI has just addressed one about the newspapers.
Unbelievable that "fair and balanced" (ha!) newspapers, journalists, who knew better would allow themselves to be censored in such a manner.
Speaking of dictators, Lord Beaverbrook, owner of several newspapers of the day, was certainly one. Extremely wealthy and influential he reminds me in some ways of Rupert Murdoch.
More later, I am due in town soon. Must run.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
Is it true that one must have the ability to be an excellent speaker to be a leader, regardless of your intellectual abilities?
There were two possible leaders during this year, 1939 ( Eden and Churchill) .Why did not either one of them want to challenge Chamberlain?
Why was Czechoslovakia important to both Germany and England?
“We decide what to do and then send for the newspapers and tell them to sell it to the public.” Neville Chamberlain’s policies kept the public ignorant of the growing crisis. Did this, in the end, help or hurt the British public? How?
How was the growing international crisis in Europe treated by the press or the president in America during this period?
Was Chamberlain fully cognizant of the disparity between Britain’s armed forces and Germany’s soldiers? If so, was he correct to try to find a way to end the dispute with Germany?
Had England declared war on Germany in 1938, what would have been the result?
Chamberlain wrote to his sister after his visit to Hitler in1938 that Hitler was a man who could be true to his word . Is it a quality of leadership to correctly judge the character of a foreign leader? Can you think of any instances in history where such a quality would have been beneficial to America?
When Chamberlain returned from Munich he was received by the King, Queen of England on the balcony to waving crowds, the first time a ruling monarch had allowed a commoner to be acknowledged from the balcony of Buckingham Palace. Has this ever occurred since?
Duff Cooper resigned from the Government in protest over Chamberlain’s agreement with Hitler? Was this the right thing to do? Is it ever?
Do you feel the author is unduly harsh in her criticism of Chamberlain? Is it wrong to attempt to avoid a war, a reconciliation, in order to save lives of your countryman?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This week Hitler raises the stakes by making new territorial demands in central Europe. This time his victim was a small young republic of Czechoslovakia. As the crisis heightened War appeared to be the probable outcome but Chamberlain was determined to negotiate with Hitler a peaceful settlement. The result was the Munich Agreement under which Hitler got all he wanted. Under this treaty Germany immediately annexed the boarder region with its large ethnic German population and in the spring of 1939 occupied the rest of what had been Czechoslovakia.
I find it interesting that though Britain and the entire U.K. people would soon come to regret this surrender their first reaction was relief. Chamberlain was received as a hero by the people. Great crowds greeted him at the airport, at Buckingham Palace, on the streets, and at 10 Downing Street. “I bring Peace in our time” he told them. I remember following the event from radio News. I had just turned 11 and did not really understand the event, but looking back I think most of my adult family also took it with a sense of relief. But It didn’t take long; less than one year later the same P.M was forced to announce that a state of War existed between the U.K. and Germany. WWII had begun.
-
CHAPTER SIX: QUITE SIMPLY, HE TOLD LIES!
Yes, HAROLD, Czedchoslovakia. Let me quote from the book the value of that small republic.
"Czechosolovakia was the only democracy in Eastern Europe. It was also the region's most highly industrialized country, with one of the world's greatest armament works. If Germany crushed Czechoslovakia, it would control Czech munitions, industrial capacity and natural resources.....it would also mean the encirclement of Poland on three sides and wouth threaten Hungary and oil-rich Romania."
Certainly Chamberlain knew that, even if he had never flown there before! Hitler knew it, too, and was going to get it! He needed it!
Leo Amery knew it too and in a letter to the TIMES, said that "our best hope of peace now lies in telling Germany that if she touches Czechosolovakia we are in it, too."
What did he think might happen if Britain told Hitler that? Peace?
Isn't Leo Amery an interesting fellow, not one of the young men, he had attended school with Churchill and had a competitive relationship with him often, colliding with Churchill over Indian self-government. However, as others before him, he was hampered by his reputation as a dull, droning speaker, who did not have the ease of a well-turned phrase.
The first question in the heading asks that very question. Is it possible to rise to the heights of political power without being a good orator?
JONATHAN, DEB, what of your Canadian prime ministers? The only one I remember reading about is Trudeau? Sometime ago? And the fact, also, that I spent a wonderful Christmas once at your Chateau-Frontenac in Quebec. Oh, what luxuty, what scenery, how delightful and I rode my only funicular there. Memories, they grow very cold and sometime I can't believe them.
AND, WEND!! What of your Govenor-generals? I apologize if I am not correct! CAROLYN?
We need to know more about our international friends. We, some of us, are too narrow-minded and that does not mean we are not interested.
Others will disagre with me, but I think Eisenhower, Johnson, Carler, Nixon, both Bushes, were all poor public speakers. It would have been easier to name the good ones!
-
We have even had a woman Governor General and very good she was too.
The Governor-General, Hon Sir Anand Satyanand, is the personal representative of New Zealand's Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. That is the description of our Governor General on his official Govt web page. I am not sure if he is of Indian or Shri Lanken heritage. He was our Race Relations Conciliator at one time.
I just looked him up and his bio says he was born in Fiji but his grandparents came from India. He was educated in NZ and lived here from the time he began Primary school (elementary school). He qualified as a Lawyer and then became a District Court Judge. He served on many Community Boards and is well respected by the general population. You don't have to be one of the super rich to hold a high office here. Once we had the British Aristocracy as our Governor Generals but not any more. I met one of the Aristocratic GGs and his small son when I was a child. They came to our local beach in a Chauffeur driven car to have a Sunday picnic. The GG introduced himself to myself and my friends and also introduced his small son who looked extremely uncomfortable in a formal outfit of dress shorts, long socks, white shirt and tie and a miniature dress jacket. We felt awfully sorry for the wee fellow. His dad looked at us, looked at his little son then allowed his son to take off his jacket, tie and shoes and socks and play on the sand. I always had a soft spot for that GG.
-
What did he think might happen if Britain told Hitler that? Peace?
From what I'm reading, ELLA, it definitely appears that Hitler was
encouraged in his program of territory seizures by England's timidity.
If England had stood by it's treaties. Hitler would have pulled back and
proceeded more cautiously. Peace? No. But it would probably have slowed
Hitler down and given England, and Europe, more time to build up strength.
[KIWI, I really enjoyed that little vignette about the CG and his son.
I'm so glad the little fellow had a chance to get out of his rig and
play.]
Duff Cooper (Lord of the Admiralty) re. Chamberlain: “A man who is both so confident of himself and so confiding in others has as little chance in a Europe dominated by [the dictators] as Little Lord Fauntleroy would have of concluding a satisfactory deal with Al Capone.”
On Duff Cooper’s resignation, Bob Boothby wrote, “for the first time in months…(you) have brought a gleam of hope to thousands who have hitherto believed in the fundamental decency of British public life, and who were beginning to despair.” I know how all this turned out, and I still find myself feeling frustrated and angry over Chamberlain and his blind self-satisfaction. I have to wonder how many died unnecessarily, because England was not prepared to provide properly for its soldiers
-
Regarding Ella’s 1st question: Why was Czechoslovakia important to both Germany and England?
I think Czechoslovakia had more rational importance to Germany that it did to the U.K. Aside from the fact the the country had a significant modern industrial economy including arms manufacturing, going back to the 19th century many Germans had immigrated to the s Countries east of Germany, some as far east as the Baltic states and particularly near the western border in Czechoslovakia and also Poland.
Hitler’s goal was to spread his self invented National socialist doctrine through Europe. He had a large vocal group of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia not too satisfied with their inclusion in a country with a majority of Czechs and Slovaks. Hitler always the opportunist seized the opportunity when it appeared thinking that the U.K. and France who had no great interest in the area would not get involved. Of course as Hitler found out The U.K. and France did have an interest in that they realized Hitlers evil goal and sensed they would have to stop him in the end. Yet in the case of Czechoslovakia in 1937 the idea of going to war over it was too much for Chamberlain and he settled for peace at any price.
-
Q1: "Is it true that one must have the ability to be an excellent speaker to be a leader, regardless of your intellectual abilities?"
I haven't finished this week's reading yet, but I too was struck by the story of Avery: the brilliant student, and Churchill: the mediocre student. Yet Churchill succeeded at a level that Avery didn't, because, according to the book, Churchill was a brilliant speaker. You can see how this rankled Avery in the incident of the one time he was able to best Churchill in conversation.
You clearly don't have to be a brilliant speaker: as noted, many of our Presidents haven't been. But you do have to present an image of someone who could lead a country. Avery's appearance and boring speeches probably didn't give that appearance. I'll take a wild guess: perhaps Avery dotted every i and crossed every t: which would make him a good scholar but a bad speaker.
In addition, there is always a good deal of chance in who becomes a president (or prime minister) and who doesn't. For example: Joe Biden has a reputation as a really terrible speaker, but if anything should happen (God forbid) he'd be president. And our history is full of brilliant politicians who tried and failed to be president (Daniel Webster, Henry Clay etc.)
-
Lyndon Johnson exemplifies the astute politician who knew how to play the game. The power an operator seeks has little to do with his oratorical skills or his intellect. The movers and shakers who pull the strings don't hold auditions or grade candidates on their oratory. George W was chosen by the Republicans for qualities other than those. Voters are only incidental to the outcome.
-
Well, I was discussing this point with my son and he accused me of judging Chamberlain by events future to that time, and he was right! I'm not able to put myself back there and then. This book is really stretching my mental muscles.
-
OH, WHAT FUN TO READ YOUR COMENTS. THANKS EVERYONE!
JOAN commented that "you do have to present an image of someone who could lead a country." CAROLYN thought that Lyndon Johnson had it? True, he was a force in the Senate, but I rather agree with JOAN when she said that circumstances sometimes permit men to gain a powerful postion who otherwise would not. I've never read a bio of Johnson but I wonder if he wanted the VP or the Presidential job? After he left the presidency, he just fell to pieces, poor fellow.
Historians tell us that Richard Nixon won the debates he had with Jack Kennedy during the presidential race of the 1960, but it was Kennedy's presence, his good looks, his charm, his ability to speak that won.
BABI mentioned "England's timidity" which encouraged Hitler. England and France needed more time for rearmament.
I didn't know, HAROLD, about the German patriots in Czechoslovakia who welcomed Hitler, how disconcerting that must have been to those citizens of the country who saw him as an evil conqueror. Has that been written in a book, the story of that country? I went to a downtown market today with my daughter and there was a Polish fellow there who had been in the USA five years, and had just bought his stand after working there all that time and learning English. He had such a blank look on his face when I mentioned WWII that I turned away embarrassed for having brought up the subject. I suppose young people in this country would not know of the carnage either.
I was in high school during WWII, we had maps, I later married a veteran who served on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific, witnessed terrible things including the kamikazees of Japan. I know of it.
Would young people know of Vietnam? Certainly they know of Iraq, Afghanistan, kids in high school?
But, back to the book, there are so many "IF'S" don't you think? I just re-read that "Germany, despite its intensified rearmament, was not ready for a prolonged war itself. According to British intelligence, the German economy was in trouble and the country's current supplies of fuel, rubber and other important raw materials would not last six months." )p.128)
So there you have it. If England had taken the offensive then, what could have happened?
Neither country was prepared!
Everyone was warning Chamberlain. FDR, in America, stated that the plan to dismember Czechoslovakia was the "most terrible, remorseless sacrifice that has ever been demanded of a state;" Clement Atlee, leader of the Labor Party, fmphatically said "You have anadoned these people completely. You have made an absolute surrender. All eastern Europe will now fall under Hitler's sway."
What wasn't Chamberlain listening? Wasn't he fearful of being wrong? Or was he right in giving his country time to arm, build, fortify?
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
-
Weren't Clay and Webster supposed to be fine orators,JOANK. I seem to
remember that they were. Astute politicians, both of them. It's hard to
say just why they both failed in their bids for the presidency. Our
history buffs can probably give us a good idea.
I don't think we're judging Chamberlain entirely by future events, JACKIE.
His behavior at the time, his arrogance, flouting of parliamentary safe-
guards, viciousness toward political enemies, petulance...well, frankly
he horrifies me. He may have been a fine, amiable and honorable man at
one time, but if so he definitely changed.
But oh, Churchill! The man is incomparable with words! Speaking of Chamberlain's government and their appeasement stance: “So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
-
Sorry to be so slow in joining this wonderful discussion, but I've been doing a lot of travel in the past few days promoting my latest book, and I just got a chance to catch up on all that's been written. Quite frankly, I've been blown away by all the insightful, perceptive comments I've read here. I've learned a lot from you that I didn't know!
I want to thank Ella for asking me to take part and thank all of you for taking the time to read and discuss my book. There are so many terrific ideas and insights that you have raised that I would like to comment on. But I'm afraid that once I started, I wouldn't be able to stop.
If anybody has a particular question for me, I'd be happy to answer it. I hope to jump back into the discussion in the next couple of days.
-
"events future to that time" that's an interesting way of putting it, JACKIE. Possibly, but it's all history and so fascinating to read.
BABI, I knew a little about Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler, but I didn't know the details of the man's stubborness, his unwillingness to listen to others and the other traits that you mentioned so well.
But these chapters particularly spell it out for us and the action moves fast. And being of the orderly mind that likes to list everything, I'm having difficulty here and I need help.
But before I attempt to understand the whole picture, I must mention Jan Masaryk, (pg.134) Czechoslovakia's ambassador in London and son of the country's first president. Years and years ago, I read a book written by his wife and she claims that there was no way he committed suicide as reports later claimed, but he was murdered. It was such a sad book but elegant in a way. So here's to a hero:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Masaryk
IN September, 1938:
1. Hitler marches in to Czechoslovakia
2. Chamberlain on 9/15 flies to Berchtesgaden to meet with Hitler
3. Chamberlain again flies to meet Hitler at Godesberg
4. Chamberlain again flies to meet Hitler at Munich
Is this the way it was? Not the results of those meetings, but if I am correct Chamberlain met with Hitler 3 times - 3 times!!!
That's hard to believe!
AND BABI I AGREE - CHURCHILL NOT ONLY COULD PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER WELL, BUT HE WAS A MASTER AT REPARTEE. I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF DISAGREEING WITH HIM!
-
THERE SHE IS!
OUR AUTHOR, LYNNE OLSON!
DO COME AND GREET HER, WE ARE SO PLEASED SHE STOPPED BY!
And you all are responsible for those "insightful and perceptive comments" that she mentions.
SO THANK YOU, LYNNE, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ENTHUSIASM FOR HER BOOK
-
Hi Lynne. Thanks for dropping by. Thanks for your wonderful book. Congratulations on your courage to tackle this difficult, stormy period in European history, and your unique approach to the subject. Meeting all these troublesome young men certainly allows one to see the great crisis in a new light.
Strange roles they all played, in making things so difficult for Chamberlain. How hard he really tried in dealing with the fallout of that misbegotten Versailles Peace Treaty. Things were ready made for that man with a mission, that diabolical opportunist, Hitler. Chamberlain's appeasemant policy, however, made it easy for Churchill to play his heroic part. The irony is that Hitler realized his opportunity to forge ahead before Chamberlain came along, when he reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, and got away with it.
-
Hi Lynne,
Welcome to this discussion. I am not reading " Troublesome Young Men" because I cannot get it on Kindle nor can I find it in large print. I have lots of trouble with my eyes. So I need some enhancement with the print. I am reading " Citizens of London The Americans who stood with Britain in its Darkest Finest hour". I am really enjoying it. I like the way you write and I am learning a many things from that book. I have " Citizens of London" on my Kindle. Joan Grimes
-
QUESTION FOR LYNNE
Hi, LYNNE. WELCOME!
Thank you for your comments on our discussion: the discussions here are far and away the best I've ever been in.
This book has already taught me so much, not only about the specific events but about English society and politics. How did you come to choose this subject to write about?
-
Thank you lynne Olson for your message with comments on our discussion of your book. I think the fact that we have enjoyed reading the book is evident from the large number of people involved in posting here; 17 different individuals since the April 1st beginning. We appreciate your appearance and will welcome any further comment you may make on this discussion and perhaps on our rather liberal injection of related issues such as U,K. Parliamentary Government in contrast with the U.S. Federal system and the current U.K.General Election. Again thank you for your input and any further comment you may care to make.
-
The answer to my trivia question, What English King was the last sovereign to actively be engaged in battle? The answer is King George VI_ who as a sub lieutenant was commanding a 12 inch Gun Turret aboard HMS Collingwood engaged in the battle of Jutland. He was known as Prince Albert in those days.
http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=george6 Click the following for information on the Collingwood and Google Battle of Jutland for more.
Another 19th century English King who saw action with the Royal Navy was William IV. His action came in the late 18th century when he was a midshipman and Junior officer with the R.N. William was the 4th son of George III. He did not stay long with the Navy, During his reign the First great reform law was passed. The best that could for William's role in the legislation was that he let it become law but without his personal involvement in the Royal consent process.
-
Thank you, Lynne, for finding us here and for being willing to respond to our questions. I am learning a lot from your book and finding it compelling to read.
-
LYNNE OLSON, I am learning so much from your book and greatly appreciate your even-handed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all these 'actors' in the crisis of those days.
Many I am learning of for the first time, and glad to meet them. They deserve to be remembered. Of course, much of what I read leaves me upset and frustrated, just as it did
those who lived though it. A tribute to your skill as a writer. I have to remind myself that it is all long ago.
On a lighter note in this discussion, I could not help but be amused by the insouciance of members of the ‘Other Club’. I’d probably want to smack one of them in person, but I grinned at the quote from one of them, “We were a very pleasant brotherhood, smugly confident that if we did not rule the world, it was the world’s misfortune.”
-
QUESTIONS FOR LYNNE
Shall I email LYNNE the questions we might have or wait for her to "jump" back in? I have a number of them.
Certainly much of your research was done in England; I note several libraries you worked in. Where did you stay while there?
A number of times you quote Chamberlain's letters to his sister. Is she still living? Did she mind reading your book?
-
Hi I haven't been accessing email or the internet much as I have been travelling the past week or so. But my husband and I have been listening to a most fantastic book as we drive--Gandhi and Churchill by Arthur Herman. It must be a most enormous book as there are 25 discs--we are only half way thru! BUT his description of Churchill's career is fascinating. He really was an old-fashioned swashbuckler who did many dreadful things including setting up the future ruin of the British economy by putting the pound back on the gold standard, and setting up the foundations of the present middle eastern mess by artificially creating the country of Iraq. The description of Gandhi is fascinating as well. A saint type, with the eccentricities that accompany saints I think. Reminds me a bit of the late Pope.
In the Hitler book I have got to the invasion of Russia. I didn't realise that he decided to invade Russia because he thought that if he did not, Russia would align with Britain and defeat him.
-
Welcome, Lynne! I'm glad to have a chance to tell you how much I'm enjoying your book. It's quite a feat to make it so approachable and interesting with a complex subject and a large cast of characters, many of whom are unfamiliar to many of your readers. I'm traveling now, but will be back soon in full force.
-
The travellers are checking in. Good to hear from you. And Deb, too, must be on her way home after wintering in Texas. A glorious early spring awaits you up there in Stephen Leacock country. I think you mentioned Orillia in one of your posts.
Great questions for Lynne. I've wondered too about Chamberlain's letters to his sister. They seem to be his acccount of his administration, and served him as his diary. He lived hardly a year after stepping down and had no chance to write his memoirs. Did the sister ever concern herself about her brother's place in history?
Very interesting to hear about the Herman book, Gandhi and Churchill. I must look for it. Churdhill is talked about as the man of the century. Surely he has to share that honor with Gandhi. Just imagine that. Swashbuckler and saint. The one worked as hard as the other on his self-image.
I can't help thinking that Churchill would have thought of the creation of Iraq as a feather in his cap, his opportunity to play the role of kingmaker. What a carreer. When he finally got his big chance, he had already been in politics for forty years. Too bad he had no feel for European politics. Perhaps he shared the feelings of some other English aristocrats, who looked to Hitler to bring some order to Eastern Europe. As for example, page 123:
'Lord Rothermere used his paper (the Daily Mail) to promulgate the importance of giving Hitler a free hand in Eastern Europe, so that he could attack and destroy bolshevism. If Hitler did not exist, the Daily Mail once declared, "all Western Europe might soon be clamouring for such a champion." '
Hitler's ambitions turned into a calamity for humanity, but for a while he seemed to have the respectful attention of important people.
-
Hi, Lynne. Thank you so much, for your wonderful book. I am thoroughly enjoying, and am fascinated by your writing. So much so, that I ordered "Citizens of London", and another of your books. You draw pictures with your words!
Periodically, my b lood boils, as I read of the attitude of men of that time, about my gender. I realize that it wasn't just the attitude of British men, about women. I was amazed to realize Churchill's regard of women, as so negative. Especially, knowing his love for Clementine, and his friendship with some other women. I had always thought that WC was a leader in British politics. I had no idea that before 1939 he was not held in very high regard. One of the questions I have, is how WC managed to lead his country to victory, when he drank so heavily?
After the end of WWII, I was shocked when I learned that he had been replaced as PM. I was born in 1934, so I was only 5 when Hitler invaded Poland. I lived a block behind a neighborhood theatre, and saw at least two movies a week. There was always a newsreel, and I learned a lot about WWII. The war made the greatest impact on me, of any other event in my life. I will never forget the horror I felt when I saw news of the concentration camps.
I am eager to finish "Those Terrible Young Men", so that I can begin "Citizens of London". I am wondering if you are working on another book? I am looking forward to future books that you write.
Ella, I am hoping that we can go on with this auther, and read and discuss "Citizens of London".
Sheila
-
The more I read about Eden, the more my sense of contempt grows. He refused to come to the aid of the anti-appeasement group when they, and the country, desperately needed him. When Nicolson warned him he would lost support as a result, he simply said he was still young (41) and could afford to wait “until popular favor returns to him”. He wanted everything handed to him with no effort or unpleasantness on his part.
As the crisis grows, Eden continues to shilly-shally, wanting to stay on good terms with both sides of this controversy. He wants the fruits without the labor, the glory without the risk.
My view of politics has long aligned with this statement: The qualities that get a man into power are not those that lead him, once established, to use power wisely. ~Lyman Bryson
-
but I too was struck by the story of Avery: the brilliant student, and Churchill: the mediocre student. Yet Churchill succeeded at a level that Avery didn't .
JoanK: On the Avery vs Churchill academic record issue - some with a great academic record have been no more than little boys who got all their sums right at school and in adult life were any thing but purposefully determined which may have been the case with Avery.
-
I don't think we're judging Chamberlain entirely by future events, JACKIE.
His behavior at the time, his arrogance, flouting of parliamentary safe-
guards, viciousness toward political enemies, petulance...well, frankly
he horrifies me. He may have been a fine, amiable and honorable man at
one time, but if so he definitely changed.
Babi: I agree - beautifully put. I am totally defeated in trying to understand his inability to assess Hitler at all sensibly. Despite Chamberlain having such confidence, essentially he had no ability at all to accept the situation as it really was.
-
Strange roles they all played, in making things so difficult for Chamberlain. How hard he really tried in dealing with the fallout of that misbegotten Versailles Peace Treaty.
Jonathan: It's undoubtedly well known that the settlement of the Versailles Treaty paved the way for WWII. In his book Rommel The Desert Fox, Brigadier Desmond Young advises that President Wilson had set out 14 points to finalise the negotiations for settlement. Of these 14 points, Young's book quotes Harold Nicolson as saying that only 4 of those points can with any accuracy be said to have been incorporated in the treaties of peace . The object of the peace discussion was to discuss the details for applying these principles. In fact they were never discussed and the peace was dictated without the Germans being heard. The result was ... a peace that no German felt bound by.
In view of this background any attempt by Chamberlain to resolve the issue by polite talk was akin to trying to unscramble an omelette.
-
I JUST EMAILED QUESTIONS TO OUR AUTHOR, LYNNE OLSON. If you have any MORE questions, just post them here and Lynne will answer them. ISN'T SHE GREAT!!!
We are so happy you are all with us in discussing the book and conversing with each other. Just wonderful to read.
MUCH, MUCH MORE ON OUR TABLE - I THINK WE ARE JUST ON THE SALAD COURSE! DID YOU ENJOY THE SOUP? OR ARE WE INTO THE CHICKEN WITH POTATOES YET?
Anyway, THANK YOU ALL, HAROLD AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST!
What strikes me as I read along, are the three types of government in Europe at the time.
FASCISM, COMMUNISM AND IMPERIALISM. And none of those exist today. We have lived through some perilous times, friends, and I think we are better for it, don't you?
I have company arriving from Arizona (out in the dry western region of the USA for those of you not familiar with our states) and I must do some last minute errands. Hopefully, I will be back soon, it's too interesting in here to stay away.
-
I do think there is unofficial fascism and unofficial Imperialism alive and well today. If you look at political strategies employed by the big powers within their own countries and within the greater world you may see what I mean.
-
"In a front-page article on Briitain's defenses in January 1939, the New York Times concluded there was little evidence that "Britain is better prepared for her potential enemies than at the time of Munich. Crowded centers of population remain dangerously undefended against air attack, the civilian population does not yet know what to do or where to scurry for shelter if a German bombing fleet should roar over London." (p.185)
"By early 1939, after four years of a military draft, the German Army boasted fifty-two active and fifty-one reserve divisions, totaling more than 3,000,000 men. The regular British Army, which, alone of all the armies of European powers, had no conscription, still numbered only about 180,000 men with another 130,000 in the Territorials. Even these relatively minuscule numbers were starved for adequate equipment, arms, and training." (p.187)
And Churchill was content to spend his time at Chartwell working on his book, History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He didn't like appeasement, but he wanted a place in the Cabinet and knew if he was critical of Chamberlain, he would miss his chance. This is a leader?
If Chamberlain was fully cognizant of the disparity between Britain’s armed forces and Germany’s soldiers, then, perhaps, he was correct to try to find a way to end the dispute with Germany?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
-
I suppose it could be true that Churchill wanted a position on the Cabinet. As he was, he could
do almost nothing. More importantly, though, at this time he was in one of his bouts of
depression. He was declining to speak, because it seemed to do no good.
All the anti-appeasement group are under heavy attack by the Tory leadership, their positions threatened. I notice that the attempt to oust Boothby was unsuccessful because he was “extremely popular” in his constituency, and the association leaders were put out of joint when the rank and file gave Boothby their support. Getting to know the ‘little people’ and taking an interest in their needs proves to be wise.
I was surprised to see that when the appeasement issue divided families, it was usually the wife who was anti-appeasement and the husband who was for it. One generally assumes the women will be for ‘peace’. On second thought, though, it is not the women who are so tightly bound by the ingrained strictures of party loyalty.
-
Babi I too have much less respect for Eden after reading this book. I think Eden himself described his own weakness very well when he said of himself, “I lack spunk.” In the very end during our last week, we will discuss his final rather short political end as P.M.
Wend I think contemporary, after the fact events are of necessity a principal reference for judging a politician’s past actions. In Chamberlain’s case his previous appeasement policy was obviously unsuccessful in 1939 when Hitler again demanded territorial concessions from Poland. Chamberlain himself then realized its failure with a Declaration of War on Germany.
-
Ella and others too have mentioned England’s better preparation resulting from the year delay. The U.K. in September 1939 was no doubt a bit better prepared than in Oct 1938 but probably not a great deal better. And Germany also was better prepared in 1939 than in the previous year. Perhaps the main advantage resulting from the delay for the U.K. was that in 1939 the Spitfire fighter was nearing operational status. Spitfire squadrons were ready in the summer of 1940 when the air blitz began.
At the time the U.S. was even less prepared for a major war than the U.K. We did not really begin to rearm until 1940. An example of the weakness of the U.S. compared to the U.K. is that in late April 1940 when the U.K. was forced to withdraw their army from Narvik in Northern Norway, they left on the beach more anti tank guns than the entire U.S. army had at the time.
-
Kiewilady. I agee that modern governments do indeed sometime appear to follow some of the strategies employed by previous fascist and Imperial colonial regimes. I also note that they also sometimes seem to follow these strategies for the same purpose of the fascists, i.e. to control their own Countries’ popular opinion or force individuals to take a specific actions. Yet the modern governments seem to have a nobler temporary purpose, .i.e. the recent temporary occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan for the benefit of the local population.
-
I get quite mad when I read about the treatment of Kitty Atholl by her fellow anti appeasers. No-one would help her in her campaign and it's clear , as the book says, it's because she's a woman. It led me to wondering when women were first elected to congress here in the US and what sort of discrimination they had to contend with. Hopefully today a woman taking an unpopular position would be supported by those who agreed with her.
-
Dana the first woman in Congress was a Jeannette Rankin from Montana. She served two widely separated terms in the House of Representatives. In her first term, 1917 - 1919 she cast 1 of the 40 House votes against the U.S. declaration of war against Germany. In the 1919 election she ran for the Senate and was defeated. Rankin was returned to the House some 25 years later in time to again vote against the U.S. Declarations of War against Japan and Germany. Click the following following URL for an outline sketch of Women in the U.S. Congress; http://womenincongress.house.gov/
-
We recently read a book about Francis Perkins, Secretary of Labor for FDR. She felt that men would only be comfortable with her if they could imagine her in one of the traditional women's roles, so she deliberately dressed like everyones mother. She accomplished an unbelievable amount, but still was gradually squeezed out and never really given credit for what she had done.
-
England was somewhat better prepared after the year's delay, but still far from
adequate. Then, with not enough equipment to supply the forces already
standing, Chamberlain orders the induction of a large new force for which
they had no resources to equip or train.
The U.S. had not been expecting to get involved in this European war.
Once we decided to do so, provision of armaments, supplies, planes, ...
everything!...was ramped up to full speed. It was astonishing what we
were able to produce in record time.
I was startled to find Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter playing an advisory role in this affair. Startled, but pleased, too. Gave good advice to the young dissident who came to him, too.
“…the trouble with you people is that your acts don’t line up with your convictions.” He accused the ‘troublesome young men’ of acting as though this critical issue were a minor one. “Thirty resolute men in your House of Commons could save the world. You won’t convince the House by argument nor even by facts--only by the strength of your own conviction.”
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
RETRIBUTION. Punishment, banishment from your position in government for your views. The dangers of dissent. This is representative of a good government?
The Duchess of Atholl’s (Kitty) story in the House of Commons was an example of how women were regarded in this era. Can you think of any other examples of gender discrimination?
The "dirty tricks" campaign was reminiscent of our own President Nixon’s presidency which caused his impeachment. But these tactics against Prime Minister Chamberlain’s enemies caused fractures that lasted for years.
WAITING FOR A LEAD. Why was Churchill regarded as "too rash, too prone to mistakes in judgment," undesirable qualities? Yet others thought he had "unflinching courage and matchless eloquence." What is your opinion of Churchill in 1939?
What finally began to wake up the public as to the dangers of Nazism?
What made Chamberlain change his mind about Hitler and declare that Britain would go to the aid of Poland if their independence was threatened? What were the advantages and disadvantages of this policy at this time?
Why did Churchill remain silent during this period?
Are you familiar with the Maginot Line, France’s defense in case of war?
On August 23, 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact which stunned Great Britain.
Joe Kennedy, who was then U.S. Ambassador to England, informed the State Department that the British government wanted Roosevelt to put pressure on the Poles to make concessions to Hitler . Did you know that? What was America’s reaction to that? How did Great Britain react to the news?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
WEND, JONATHAN, HAROLD AND several of you have mentioned the Versailles Treaty which, no doubt, led to WWII. There is a good web site stating the terms and consequences of the treaty here:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS, I have out of state company for this week, but will try to keep up with the rest of you. We are to start new chapters tomorrow, but meanwhile:
England is PLAYING AT WAR, and as several of you have noted not doing a good job at it.
BABI, as you stated, Chamberlain is so ill prepared mentally for war. Did you notice that he wrote to his sister that he should probably resign if it came to war? "I was never meant to be a war minister," he said. He's stumbling around making all the wrong decisions, and the House of Commons is almost as bad.
They gave the goverment a blank check to do anything it wanted, habeas corpus were swept away, powers of assembly and speech were taken away, freedoms of all kinds. One law journal states "that no such interference with individual rights has ever taken place without adequate discussion and criticism in Parliament."
Anything remind you of America in the last decade?
HI DANA! Are you still on the road? That book about Ghandi and Churchill would be fascinating to read; both such strong-willed men, determined, leaders, and with opposite views about India! I wold love to read it, but it sounds so huge! And I think, also, that any women reading this book would feel as you do about the treatment of women in the government at that time.
The book we should discuss next is about a female leader, a Margaret Thatcher, a Golda Meier. They could wake up people!
CAROLYN, just what countries were you referring to when you spoke of facism in the world today.
YOU KNOW, THE MEN WE ARE DISCUSSING WERE GIANTS OF HISTORY, whether evil or not. CHURCHILL, HITLER, STALIN. They were leaders of men and countries and historical figures. I'd like to discuss a book about Stalin, who murdered more of his own people than Hitler did I think, a terrible man, and his countrymen suffered so. And yet he was there at the peace table!
-
And Churchill was content to spend his time at Chartwell working on his book, History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He didn't like appeasement, but he wanted a place in the Cabinet and knew if he was critical of Chamberlain, he would miss his chance. This is a leader?
Well, like everyone else, Churchill had to eat. He had debts, he and Clementine were worried and anxious about their financial affairs and writing was a necessary source of income. This was not the first time Churchill had used his writing skills to meet financial problems. During 1930/31 he was able to make up (and more than make up) for his losses in the Great Crash. In a single financial year he earned 34,500 pounds from his writing alone.
We should remember that during this period while Churchill was out of office:
* his party was also out of office
* he was not in the party
* he was requested by the party to refrain from criticising their activities in order to make it easier for them to bring him back into the fold when they were returned to office
* He continued his criticism until censorship of both the press and Britain's only radio station, the government's BBC, prevented him from saying anything of substance. In fact, during his broadcasts, although his scripts had been vetted, the BBC had an engineer standing by to kill the broadcast if he so much as veered from what he had been permitted to say.
* At no time did he ever lose his concern for Great Britain and the British Empire.
* At Chartwell he received countless requests for advice and received information (much of it 'classified') from a range of persons including high ranking officials, politicians and academics.
* In maintaining this network of contacts he was, in effect, hosting at personal expense, an informal group mutually concerned with the future security of Great Britain and the Empire.
Eventually, a person or persons unknown greatly concerned with the imminence of war and Britain's vulnerability, cleared his debts freeing up his whole capacity for his forthcoming role in WWII.
On the question of Churchill's fitness for leadership - Churchill's exclusion from the government was a cause of incredulity in Germany. The following exchange of advice occurred on July 5, 1939 when two senior British soldier diplomats called on Hitler's Financial Secretary, Count Schwerin von Krosigk who told them: Take Winston Churchill into the cabinet, Churchill is the only Englishman Hitler is afraid of.
von Krosigk added that The mere fact of giving Churchill a ministerial post would convince Hitler that Britain means to stand up to him.
An account of this conversation appears in Winston Churchill, The Wilderness Years by Martin Gilbert p256. A report of this conversation was also sent to Lord Halifax with the observation that Churchill's inclusion in the Cabinet might actually avert war as Hitler would realise that Britain meant to resist further aggression.
In the event, von Krosigk's advice was ignored. It was said that Chamberlain feared that the return of Churchill would destroy any last minute hopes of appeasement over Danzig.
-
One thing about Churchill, that would immediately eliminate him as a candidate for high public office in the U.S. today was his addiction to alcohol. Could you imagine the American public’s outrage on hearing their President consumed a fifth of high density Scotch whisky a day? Yet in 1940 this well publicized habit didn’t seem to bother the British. In fact it didn’t seem to affect his leadership abilities. Also I Don’t think it bothered the vast majority of Americans in 1940.
-
Fascism today - all countries which have a dictator or Military Junta in office. Countries without democratic government. There are some big countries and there are some really small ones. IMHO I would say that those countries who say they are Communist are actually fascist.
-
Do you think we delve too much into the personal lives of our politicians in the 21st century. If we delved into the lives of some of our most powerful CEOs we would probably find just as much dirt there and these people are in charge of sometimes billions of dollars of investors money. I would not like to see a P addict in office or a paedofile or such but it seems today we are unhealthily interested in the lives of the famous or those who hold office.
-
KIWI, the general public's fascination with 'celebrities' and their doings has always puzzled me.
I couldn't care less and fail to see why anyone else does. I enjoy and admire whatever genuine
talents and skills they may have; their personal life does not concern me at all. Those who are
'celebrities' simply because they are rich and keep getting into trouble...well, that is simply
ludicrous.
WEND, I really appreciate you analysis of Churchill's situation during the years he was out of
office. That is very helpful in understanding his choices and decisions.
10 It seems a pity that Sir Timothy Eden was not the one in politics instead of his younger brother. He spoke very strongly to Anthony about the need for action on his part, but with no more success than anyone else. And then when he finally did agree to make an appearance and speak against the government, he let his group down again. He gave only “timid generalizations” and made none of the criticisms that were the whole point of that mass meeting.
Oh, I dearly wish I could have heard Violet Bonham Carter’s speech. It was described as brilliant and ‘searing’. She was making a speech such as Eden should have made, rather than the one she had planned to make, so it is quite likely it was never written down.
Eden, pathetically, wrote that Lady Violet “rather spoilt the effect of [my speech]…” Really, the ‘troublesome young men’ must have really been desperate for a leader to continue to hope for anything from Eden.
The only apparently viable alternative was Churchill, and there were many who still distrusted his judgment. The British people had become aware, by now, that they were not being told the truth about what was happening. A supporter wrote to Churchill, “There is an intense desire on the part of the ordinary people of this country for decisive leadership---and an earnest desire to be told the true facts of the situation and to face up to them.”
At least the public seems to be aware, now, that they are not being told the truth by the
government controlled press. With both Eden and Churchill refusing to step up, it’s beginning to seem to be a minor miracle that England ever rallied at all.
-
WEND, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT INFORMATION ABOUT CHURCHILL. Fascinating. And another indictment against Chamberlain. And another book to add to my list. Will history divulge who paid Churchill's debts at that time do you think? Have you looked at his History of the English Speaking Peoples? As it seemed to sell well, I wonder if it still available and how readable it is? How many volumes?
Well, I must look it up for myself but I think you have given us some answers to a couple of the questions in the heading.
OH, I AGREE, CAROLYN, about public figures, but the public's fascination, and the 24-hour news media hunger must be satisfied and, thank goodness, we can turn it off! Much of it on TV, I find, is repetitive, each station trying to find a morsel to eat that others left on the plate.
BABI, yes, a miracle that Britain rallied in time before Hitler arrived on its shores. He was so close; I've always wondered and never took the time to discover why he hesitated across the English Channel.
But I'm ahead of it all.
CHAPTERS ll through the 16th.
Chamberlain is still Prime MInister and still believes he can contol Hitler and Mussolini. The press is still behind his government. What a predicament Britain is in and Hitler and his generals are watching closely and planning. It's a suspense story.
There are new questions in the heading for your consideration.
-
“Paris, 1919” by Margret MacMillan was discussed in detail on our old seniorsnet site in 2004. I judge this discussion one of the best led by Ella and myself. This discussion is still available in our archives at
http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/archives/nonfiction/Paris1919.html/
Ella and I included the following Kirkus Review quotation in the our discussion heading, "MacMillan disputes that the Paris arrangements led directly to WWII; decisions made afterward, she argues, were more significant. The peacemakers made mistakes, she concedes, but "could have done much worse." Among the Conference's real achievements were the fashioning of seven European countries and Turkey out of the detritus of failed empires, the development of an International Labor Organization, and the creation of the League of Nations, which presaged the rise of the United Nations. Absorbing, balanced, and insightful narrative of a seminal event in modern history." - - Kirkus Review
I think the majority of our discussion participants were not inclined to accept the conclusion of this reviewer. True, when the 1919 conference was adjourned WW II was not a certainty. True also that a succession of subsequent events mark the road to the beginning of the new War. But too many of these subsequent events have their cause clearly emerging from the decisions of the 1919 conference. A good example was the imposed obligation of the new German Republic to pay huge War reparations, so large that the German economy could not possibly pay. The resulting economic collapse led to the takeover of Germany by the Nazi Party and Hitler. As the review indicates there were many favorable achievements coming out of the conference, but the mistake seem to me to have led direct to WWII.
-
Yes, I agree HAROLD. That was a good discussion; good book! We recommend it, but most of us, as you said, still believe that the war occurred because of the economic conditions in Germany, the war reparations clause in the Peace Treaty, etc. Hitler promised good times, jobs, etc.
I learned a couple of new things while reading Chapter Eleven, fun to learn new things!
I knew about the nonaggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, but I DIDN'T KNOW THAT BRITAIN HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN TALKS AND HOPING FOR A similar pact with the Soviet leaders for the protection of Poland.
Did you know that?
And then I learned that Joe Kennedy (U.S. ambassador to Britain) "informed the USA State Department that the British government wanted the Roosevelt administration to put pressure on the Poles to make concessions to Hitler."
The Poles make concessions to Hitler!
-
HAVE ANY OF YOU LEARNED ANYTHING NEW FROM THESE CHAPTERS? Olson writes so very well and has been meticulous in her research.
Those of us of a certain age can recall many of these events, but not all of them, and we knew nothing of the TROUBLED YOUNG MEN. For some reason, well, many reasons young CARTLAND impresses me so very much. Here is the testing, he said, our generation must prove their worth. That is so sad, another young generation off to war. When will it end?
-
Reference has been made more than once to the ‘permanent undersecretary’ of one office or another. I understand this to be the civil service head of that office, the man or woman who
remains in place as the directors or ministers come and go. They advise the political head of the department, who may actually know very little about it when they first arrive. The permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office at this time is quoted as saying his diary entries of early 1939 left the “impression of a number of amateurs fumbling abut with insoluble problems…. We were being swept along on a rapid series of surprises sprung upon us by Hitler with a speed that took one’s breath away.” Desperation time, any way you look at it.
Chamberlain finally makes a speech denouncing Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia. He is upset, it seems, because “Surely, as signatory of the Munich agreement, I was entitled, if Herr Hitler thought it ought to be undone, to that consultation which is provided for in the …declaration.” Herr Hitler has failed to show him proper respect!
-
I am most interested in reading more about Ronald Cartland. Unfortunately, there seems to be very few of Barbara Cartland's biography of her brother available, mostly in the UK and Australia. A reviewer on Amazon's site said that he would like to see someone write a biography from a more historical point of view ("not to take away from" his sister's bio, which he said was worth reading). He was surprised at how little there was in her book about the anti-appeasment period.
Christies in the UK had at auction last December a signed first edition of Ronald Cartland by his Sister estimated at £100 – £150. It went unsold.
I happened across a photo of Major Cartland's war memorial at Hotton Cemetery in Belgium. Thought you might like to see it.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=14041892&PIpi=8368645
Also ran across an interesting review (critique?) of Troublesome Young Men. It popped up in my Cartland search. Apparently David Dutton doesn't think Cartland deserved as much "prominence" as he got in the book. Hmmmmm! http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/essays/PDF/Dutton-Olson.pdf
-
I loved Frances Perkins little trick, so insightful!
Here's a link to some more info of the story about England and WWII.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/08/99/world_war_11/default.stm
I am almost finished with this most interesting book but due to health constraints, I haven't found time to post my opinions. All of your posts have really been an education for me also.
-
Yes, BABI, English civil service, what would governments do without them? And (to repeat your sentence) Herr Hitler failed to show proper respect for Chamberlain or his government! iMAGINE THAT!
This has been said before but it is a shame in a way that Hitler, Stalin or Roosevelt did not leave diaries or memoirs of any kind; historians can write of the three from the perspective of those that surrounded them, as Olson had done, of course.
What regrets Hitler must have had in the final days of the war.
Millions of Britons knew they were at war on Sept. 3rd, 1939 when Chamberlain's trembling voice broadcast the news that his long struggle to win peace had failed.
Lady Violet's response was "We no longer need to feel ashamed."
Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary that Chamberlain cannot possibly lead us into a great war.
Eden wrote that the speech was more the "lament of a man deploring his own failure rather than the call of a nation to arms."
Harold Macmillan stated that in his view it wouldl have better if the burden of war was in stronger hands.
Leo Amery said that Winston will emerge as P.M. by the end of the year.
Boothby wrote to Churchill it was "not the speech of a man who intends to lead us through the struggle.
-
FRYBABE, THANKS FOR BOTH OF THOSE SITES! Very, very interesting.
I've never read any of Barbara Cartland's books, aren't they romances? Yes, I just looked her up and it is just something I would never read but she has been quite a success hasn't she?
And a critique, yes, of the book we are discussing. But the fellow has read the book and states that it is enjoyable reading; that in itself is a compliment, no? TROUBLESOME MIDDLE-AGED MEN, hahaa! The Professor writes of Lord Halifax, I must look him up.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR POSTS!
Hi ANN! Am happy you are enjoying Olson's book.
WHERE ARE ALL OF YOU - DON'T FINISH THE BOOK YET, WE HAVE A FEW CHAPTERS TO GO - FASCINATING STUFF!
-
Yes, I was surprised to read that Felix Frankfurter allowed himself to get involved in British politics. How odd that an Englishman with the name of Law should ask the advice of a U.S. Supreme Court justice on how to topple the British prime minister from power. Perhaps it was Frankfurter's sage advice (177) that stiffened the resolve of the rebels. The time came when the chief government whip (and wasn't he a tough cookie) had to advise Chamberlain to declare war to avoid an uprising in Parliament. (211)
The advice from Count Schwerin von Krosigk, Hitler's Financial Secretary, must have reached Chamberlain, but too late to make a difference in preserving peace. Hitler, according to Krosigk, feared Churchill as an adversary. But then, so did Chamberlain, who may have put Churchill into the cabinet to shut him up. Churchill did insist that he felt shackled.
The biggest problem for the rebels was the lack of leadership. Oratorical skills seemed to count for so much. In that case, why not Lady Violet Bonham Carter? She seized the opportunity at the anti-appeasement rally, following Eden's lack-lustre address (182)., with her own searing, extemporaneous address, that left Leo Amery green with envy:
"With such gifts of eloquence I might easily have been Prime Minister long ago."
Eden was furious. Lady Violet had spoiled it for him!
So why not Lady Violet for Prime Minister?
Many steps were being taken to allay the public fears of threatening bomb and gas attacks. How odd to hear Eros,thegod of love being moved out of harm's way at Piccadilly Circle.
-
Until reading this book, I had no idea that the children of London were evacuated so soon. It must have been terribly frightening for both the children and the parents. Since reading this, I keep thinking about what it would have been like for everyone involved. I wonder what effect it had on the children, for the rest of their lives.
Bonhiem-Carter had no chance of becoming P.M., because she was a woman. Makes me wonder how many brilliant women were lost to history, just because of their gender. That attitude has changed some in our time, but still exists, to some extent, in America.
It seems to me that it took a long time, before Brits began to confront Chamberlain. I wonder if that has changed? It is certainly different here in the States. For years I have heard that a 3 party system would not work here. Yet, in Britain, it has worked for years.
From what I have read, and heard, one of the reasons Churchill didn't speak out against Chamberlain sooner, was he was so eager to become part of the Cabinet. I think he made a mistake in accepting a Cabinet post, as being a member continued to restrain him from honestly voicing his opinions in opposition to Chamberlain.
Yes, I knew that Joseph Kennedy was pro Germany when he was ambassador to England. I have read a lot about the Kennedy's time in England. However, I wonder WHY he was so pro Hitler? At what point did he abandon that stance?
As soon as I finish reading this book, I will begin reading Lynne's book, "Citizen's of London". I am anxious to learn more about Ed Murrow, and Eric Severeid. I remember both during the second WW.
My understanding of why Hitler didn't contine, and invade England, is because he decided to change tactics and invade Russia, instead. I think the Luftwaff had been decimanted during the blitz, by the RAF. So Hitler ignored the treaty with Russia, and took his war to the Soviets. His military leaders strongly disagreed with that decision.
Tommorow, on the Military Channal, there is a program called: "World At War", at 1:00 p.m., PDT. Tommorrow's episode is called: "A New Germany". "History offers hop to economically troubled Germany". I often watch this channel, as I am interested in the time period from 1906-1950. Following this edisode, another will be shown. It deals with the Nazi takeover of Eastern Europe. Which forced Britain to face the possibility of war. I plan to record it, in hope of learning more about this period.
Sheila
-
Looking back I remember the late August crisis following the events through Newspaper and radio news. I certainly did not understand the complexity of all the events that were going on or any of the details I have read now in the book. I just awoke Sunday morning, Sept 3, 19939 to hear the news, WWII had begun.
I don't see how Chamberlain survived after the events of the first 3 days of September. In Parliament by Sept 2nd even the Tories and certainly the labor and Liberal members were ready to vote no confidence. He wrote to his sister later that he should have resigned, Obviously Emotionally he was not qualified to lead a great nation in war time after his long appeasement effort had failed, yet he hung on for another 5 months. Our Author notes that Churchill contributed to his staying as PM by his failure to press for his resignation. Apparently this was because a few days before Chamberlain announced that Churchill would be given a unspecified Cabinet post. At any rate the Brits were able to get rid of its failed PM in five months; under the U.S. Federal system it might have taken up to 4 years.
-
>"My understanding of why Hitler didn't contine, and invade England, is because he decided to change tactics and invade Russia, instead. I think the Luftwaff had been decimated during the blitz, by the RAF."
Absolutely serenesheila. Even though great damage to English Cities and great civilian causalities occurred, the Luftwaffa failed to break the British will to fight. Hitler thought he could win another spectacular victory in Russia. Looking back the June 1941 invasion marked the beginning of the end. After spectacular initial victories Winter came and stopped the German army.
-
The Russian Winter has affected ( and defeated) many would be invaders of Russia. You would have thought Hitler would have thought about this before he decided to adopt this strategy!
-
Don't you just admire the British people for their fortitude during the blitz. I met some British people who were children during this time and they were still feeling the affects of the terrror they endured night after night when they told me about it in 1968. Their parents had an Anderson Shelter in the yard. They were English middle class and refused to have their children evacuated. Some of the kids were badly treated in their foster homes.
-
I was glad to see the Ronald Cartland War Memorial, FRYBABE. This was a
man who certainly deserved to be honored. If Ms. Olson's facts are accurate,
..and Dutton acknowledges her research and scholarship...then Cartland
does deserve the belated honor she pays him, IMO.
ELLA, you have neatly summarized the general view regarding Churchill vs
Chamberlain as the crisis comes to a head.
In the midst of all this, however, I was shocked to read that Churchill had told David Margesson, the Tory Whip, that he agreed completely with Chamberlain’s new anti-appeasement policy. But then, I considered that the new policy, verbally at least, was a reversal of the appeasement that Churchill had been fighting all these years. I don’t think Churchill believed for a minute that Chamberlain was sincere, but he could do a lot more sitting in Whitehall than at home. And, of course, he desperately needed income.
Violet Bonham-Carter as PM! I'd vote for her, JONATHAN, but I doubt if she would have
accepted the offer. She had refused to stand for parliament, apparently saying her duty was
to her children and family. Not that those duties prevented her from writing and making speeches to support those who shared her views.
-
Where do we find Violet Bonham Carter when the air-raid warning sends Londoners running for shelter? In the medical station set up to treat the casualties. Again she shows true leadership qualities. Just judging by her picture, she looks prepared to lead.
What struck me was that, with all his admiration for her abilities, Amery, as a male and knowing his own limitations, never even remotely thought of her as a potential fighting leader to save the country.
It takes a book like this to remind us of the countless unsung heroes in history. Especially among women.
The Kitty Atholl story is a good example. She didn't lose by much in the election, without party support, depending only on her self.
-
Another trivia question?
A few days ago in a newspaper column of political commentary, the author said:
"Across the waters, Britain is threatening to become once again THE SICK MAN OF EUROPE."
I can't remember that ever being said about the world's greatest imperial power. Granted she was in a weakened state after WWI, but she still a force to be reckoned with, given the right leadership.
The phrase was used about a hundred years ago, about what other once great power?
-
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14041892 Click the preceding URL for information and pictures of the Ronald Cartland burial site in Luxembourg. Apparently he was killed May 30 1940 when his army unit was involved in the covering of the British withdrawal to Dunkirk.
Also I should have added in my message #298 last night that it was the RAF who won the Battle of Britain. Both the older Hurricane fighter plane and the newer Spitfire fighter, but in particular the courage and flying skill of the RAF fighter pilots made the victory possible. By June 1941, Hitler gave up, looking elsewhere for an elusive victory in Russia. The bombing of Britain was not over but it never again reached the all out intensity that marked the winter of 1940 - 41. Churchill in Parliament in one of his most remembered speech said “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”
If anything was gained by the war's delay occasioned by Chamberlains 1938 appeasement policy, it gave time for the Spitfire fighter to become operational when it was most needed.
-
Jonathan, I do love trivia, thank you for your question. I don’t know the answer so I’ll guess. I suppose the sick man of Europe term could have been applied to 1910 Russia, but I think the more likely candidate would be the Hapsburg Austrian Empire.
Who else has an answer????????
-
The Sick Man of Europe was the Ottoman Empire.
Both Russia and Britain, and to a much lesser extent France and Germany, had their eyes on the Turkish territories. They wanted to gain, if not outright territory, exclusive trade agreements with the various potentates under the Ottomans as well as other areas including Afghanistan. These powers saw their chance at manipulating the Ottoman Turks and their subject states into trade and military treaties to their advantage with very little if any real gain to the Turks. Another thing preying on the minds of the British East India Company and their overseers in London was their concern about Russian expansion and possible invasion of India.
-
"The Russian Winter has affected ( and defeated) many would be invaders of Russia. You would have thought Hitler would have thought about this before he decided to adopt this strategy!"
He should have read "War and Peace"!
-
I'm back home--finished "Gandhi and Churchill"--can recommend it highly, covers many of the same issues, obviously, but with a slightly different slant. For example, mentions many of Churchill's supporters prior to his becoming PM, but none mentioned in our book, except Boothby, so there were clearly many others who were against appeasement.
Also after WW1 Chamberlain was a pacifist, very much against all the killing, ......nothing wrong with that (this is me talking, not from the book!)--Churchill had a grand disregard for killing, just like other world leaders who think in terms of end results and moving pieces on a battlefield, not about individual deaths and individual suffering, or any suffering for that matter. Which is right? And when? Who makes the judgement? Sometimes I guess you have to fight, it looks like we did in WW2, or that's the perception now, but I think Chamberlain did his best and what he believed and I admire him for that.
We can only hope to grasp a part of the truth of the past. Each book has a different viewpoint and one tends to think it expresses the truth, but it only expresses the author's opinion really
Someone was mentioning we might read some other biographies, including Stalin--I have a great biography of him by Robert Service written in 2005, with new material from the Russian archives, I don't know if anything more recent has been published. I keep meaning to read it again....would anyone be interested in it??
-
"He should have read "War and Peace"!
Hubris had set in for Hitler by 1941. Another blitzkrieg in the East should do it, to get that lebensraum he desired for Germany, and to cleanse Europe of the bolshevism he detested. Those were his serious aims, and Chamberlain must have taken them into account in formulating his own policies for Britain. I don't think Chamberlain ever gave up the hope of reaching an accomodation with Hitler that would save Britain another bloodbath such as WWI. But that's close to being off the top of my head. This book has me thinking strange thoughts.
The rebels were certain that Chamberlain had allowed Britain to sink into a 'sick man' condition. The glory days of Imperial Britain were hardly over. Churchill was still living them. Bob Boothby felt, it seems, like Britain had been cheated out of something. How the mighty have fallen. And without so much as a proper decline. I cant resist quoting his letter to the party whip after being 'whipped' for his rebellious ways:
"I ask you to believe that I have not attacked the Government for the last twelve months simply for the fun of the thing, but out of very genuine conviction. The inescapable truth...is that, within a miraculouslsy short period of five years, your Government reduced this country from a position of world supremacy and absolute security to one of mortal peril. It took the Roman Empire a hundred years of the most enjoyable decadence to achieve the same results." p239
Frybabe, that is a splendid answer to the trivia question. Then again there must be many who would, like Harold, think of Russia, Austria, and perhaps even France. English diplomats didn't have much wiggle room to get worthy allies to help Britain maintain peace in Europe.
-
Another great post, Dana.
-
Jonathon, one more Sick Man of Europe comment: Britain in the 1960s and 1970s apparently became same because of the high unemployment and bad economy. And in the middle of all this came the Beatles who gave the English at the very least a morale boost and a renewed interest in things British. I don't know how much of an economic boost they created, but apparently they did. It is no wonder the Queen presented them with knighthood. I remember some fuss about it at the time.
-
I remember Kitty Atholl only ran for Parliament in the first place at
the urging of her husband and the local community. After she lost her
seat she spent her time involved in community affairs and charitable
activities. She may well have been happier, and more influential, there.
She would certainly have been more appreciated.
[Jonathan, I cheated and looked it up, so I won't answer your trivia
question. I do like trivia, tho'.] ps. Ah, I see Frybabe has answered.
'It took the Roman Empire a hundred years of the most enjoyable decadence to achieve the same results." What a great line! It takes talent to be that courteous, sincere and sarcastic in one paragraph. A bow to Boothby.
I was pleased to read Duff Cooper’s response to the Duke of Westminster, who believed Hitler and England were ‘best friends’. “I hope that by tomorrow he will know that we are his most implacable and remorseless enemies.”
Now that’s the spirit that saved Britain.
-
Ella sent me a number of questions that she and other readers had about my work. Here are the questions and my answers:
Certainly much of your research was done in England; I note several libraries you worked in. Where did you stay while there?
My husband, who was my co-author on two books, went with me on most of my research trips to London and other British cities, including Birmingham, Oxford, and Cambridge -- which was a really wonderful experience for both of us. In London, we usually rented a flat, and in the other cities, we stayed in hotels or B&Bs. It was a great way to get to know the country a little better.
A number of times you quote Chamberlain's letters to his sister. Is she still living? Did she mind reading your book?
Actually, Chamberlain’s letters were sent to two sisters, both of whom were very close to him and to whom he wrote almost every day, unburdening himself in a way that he did with very few other people. Neither of them is still living. If they were, I’m sure they would not like my book.
How did you come to choose this subject to write about?
When I was doing research for a previous book that touched on Britain in World War II, I came across the story of Churchill’s coming to power -- and the role of people like Harold Macmillan and Robert Boothby in making that happen. I was especially fascinated by Macmillan and Boothby and their tortured relationship, and I started reading more about them and their parliamentary colleagues. Before I knew it, I had come up with the idea for Troublesome Young Men.
Are you working on another book?
Actually, I’ve done preliminary research for another book, but I can’t talk much about it yet because I’m still writing a proposal for my publisher.
-
LYNNE, I had to smile at your remark that Chamberlain's sisters would probably not have liked
your book. Undoubtedly not They probaly adored their famous brother and thought him much
put upon by his enemies. Did he have brothers, I wonder? (Don't bother to reply to that one;
it's just idle curiosity..a trait that leads me down many wandering trails.)
Continuing on the subject of Chamberlain, folks, I see that warned that his continued appeasement could bring down his government, Chamberlain
declares that England will go to war if Hitler invades Poland. He did this against the advice of the major military leaders of the country, who told him England did not have the means to do it.
He then orders that the Territorial Army will be doubled, even though there is not enough equipment, arms, training centers or instructors to train them. He then orders mandatory military training for all men 20 or over, further straining the critical shortages. Hey, it sounds good, right? Never mind the actual implementation.
But then, according to Hore-Belisha, Chamberlains’ Sec. of War, Chamberlain never had any intention of following up on his threat to defend Poland. “Neville still believes he can control Hitler and Mussolini and that they heed him.” Surely this is self-delusion at its worst.
-
Regarding England going to the aid of Poland: As a practical matter in 1939 there was no real way England, France or any other country could send on the ground military aid to Poland. Though they might go to war against Germany as they finally did, by reason of geography and strategic position, England could not suddenly send and army to aid Poland. In 1939 no power (except maybe Germany) had any capability of sending an army by air and transport by sea through the Baltic would have been blocked in bloody defeat by German Stuka Dive bombers operating just a few miles from their bases. The only thing England could do was what they finally did, begin a long Continental War
-
Thank you Lynn for your reply to Ella's questions. Isn't it interesting how the letters so many literate people have been preserved. I wonder if the great of today write letters to their families of friends as they did then? Will their letters be available for biographers to use? Maybe e-Mail letter, I sort of doubt that. Of course future biographers will have a great mass of press both written, ora,l and pictorial sources.
-
THANK YOU, LYNNE! One of the rewards of being an author, writing books, is, no doubt, the travel, the places unknown. How great that must have been. Thank you so much for posting and answering our questions.
As BABI said, the sisters must have adored their brother, Chamberlain; boosted his ego when others were making life so difficult for him. I can understand his position, hating war, trying very hard to keep his country out of it, but he was blind to what was in front of him; Churchill, who, as DANA said, had a "grand disregard for killing" knew. As Amery put it, Churchill was the only member of the War Cabinet with any "offensive fighting spirit." Somehow, in time of war, a leader arises to lead; but then, of course, there are leaders (Hitler, Stalin) who also lead nations.
JONATHAN, I believe, suggests sympathy for Chamberlain also in a recent post.
WHAT A GRAND DISCUSSION ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN HAVING! My sister from AZ is visiting me (in Ohio) and we have been revisiting old paths we once trod together. I'm missing out a bit from the discussion, but I will catch up.
Someone suggested a biography of Stalin, was it by Service? I must look it up, I've never read it and would like to if it is a good book.
And someone else suggested we continue our conversation with LYNNE's next book CITIZENS OF LONDON. We will look into that if there is interest.
FRYEBABE! Happy you are still with us. The Ottoman Empire, now there's a subject. And the British Empire, another! Empires being destroyed here along with millions and millions of Jews, political enemies, civilians, and those unfortunate but gallant soldiers whose countries called them into action.
It just breaks your heart to think of lives lost during this period.
-
THE VIGILANTES, composed of 25 Tories, 16 Labourites, 8 Liberals and 4 Independents, were formed to monitor the war's progress. Chamberlain called the group "the glamour boys" which could very well have described some of them.
"Many members of the upper class closed their big houses in London (they threw parties called house coolings before they left) and took up residence in the city's luxury hotels." Meanwhile the ordinary people were coping with shortages of everything and they did not know why. Were they at war?
What a strange interlude for the British people! Isn't there anything comparable?
Do any of you remember John Maynard Keynes (pge 238) that the group consulted? I think his philosophy became known as the Keynesian theory of economics and was vigorously practiced by governments for years? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
Our current president, Obama, seems to be a fan of his theory, we are certainly spending beyond our means.
.
-
I'm here Ella, it is just that I haven't had much time to spend what with trying to get Mom's apartment cleared out and with her recent infection keeping her confined to quarters at the Assisted Living facility. In fact, I believe I am now officially behind in my reading.
Personally, I would be more interested in reading a good biography of Mussolini than of Stalin.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
How did the newspaper accounts of British blunders play in America?
Do you think the age of Chamberlain was a factor in his indecisiveness?
What did you think of the parliamentary procedures in renouncing a prime minister?
What were the tactics for “getting rid of the government“?
Do you know of other prime ministers that have been ousted from the British parliament and what tactics were used?
Did you find the way of “voting” a better way than a ballot?
If you had been Chamberlain’s friend, could you have walked down the “no” corridor?
Were you surprised by Churchill’s speech in defense of Chamberlain?
Why was Churchill so hesitant in taking on the job of Prime Minister?
Could he have taken a more active role earlier and made a difference in the war?[/b]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've been thinking about the German invasion of Poland and the Chamberlain government's refusal to do anything concrete about sending help. But I'm wondering if the state of unpreparedness of the armed forces was so bad that it was just as well they didn't. For example, if planes had been lost would the Luftwaffe have been able to wipe out the RAF the following summer? They almost did as it was. Only because Goring backed off prematurely did that go in our favour. I would think that if the Brits had started, say, bombing the Ruhr, the Germans would have started attacking the UK earlier, and we certainly wouldn't have been ready.
In the Hitler book I was reading about how Hitler had a planned policy of complete barbarity towards the Poles (and later the Russians). My father was a Polish army officer and I remember we had a book in our bookcase at home when I was a child, "The German New Order in Poland" with photos of hangings and descriptions of killings. Hitler was obsessed with "annihilating" people. One of his favourite words seems to have been "vernichten."...annihilate......Poles, Jews, insane, gypsies, even their own wounded soldiers (I don't know if that actually happened or if he just talked about it)....he never visited a single hospital or bereaved family....mind you, neither did Stalin. Perhaps that is why they could kill so many, they detached themselves from the reality of it, they were detached to begin with, but they made sure they never did anything to un-detach themselves. I don't know about Churchill.
.
-
Dana I don't recall any photos of Churchill visiting hospitals, but that that doesn't mean he never did. I do recall many photos of the King an Queen visiting hospitals and other sites of civilian bomb destruction. This was and is one of the principal duties of the Royal family
-
Regarding Ella's question. Are you familiar with the Maginot Line, France’s defense in case of war?
Indeed there was much pre-WWII news concerning the French Defense Installation constructed after the WWI armistice along the French border with Germany. It was widely held to be unbreachable by any German invading force. As it happened there was no reason for the Germans to attack through the Maginot fortification. They just did what they did in WWI, the attacked France through Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg where there was no Maginot line to breach. This area was defended by the British Expeditionary force as well as French units. These British and French units immediately moved to defend these countries but the mobile German panzer units quickly overwhelmed them triggering the historic retreat to the French Channel port of Dunkirk and the eventual evacuation of some 300,000 British and French army personnel.
How could the French in light of the WWI attack through Belgium have neglected to fortify their entire boarder? How could they have felt secure against a German invasion with so much of their border undefended?
-
Ella, please put me down for Lynne Olson"s newest book, "Citizens of London". It deals with three American men, Edward R. Murrow, Averall Harriman, and the American Ambassador to England, John Gilbert Winant. I am not interested in a book about Stalin.
Sheila
-
I wonder if Churchill did visit hospitals? Probably.
Of-course the royal family did. That's really part of the job description. ( as you said, Harold) But none of them had to decide to send young men/women to die/be maimed.
-
hi there
we've arrived home finally, no luck with getting internet of any duration on the way home--lovely welcome snow on Saturday, but the daffodils are up here and buds are out on some trees, trillium are starting to show! ...good to be home...we live in Price's Corners 5 minutes to Orillia, home of Stephen Leacock, you're right Jonathan
I have been catching up on the posts, but thought I'd put my 2cents worth in now....it is an amazing read with much 'food for thought'
that Chamberlain could, with his party whips, coerce his party and the newspapers such that the English people were really unaware of the peril just across the English channel.... were the party members 'the old boy's group' drawn so close that they didn't think for themselves!!
Churchill was an amazing man with how he handled his time in office as Prime Minister, pulling his nation to work together against Germany & Hitler...yet he was so loyal to Chamberlain with his desire to be a member of his cabinet; he didn't really appear to me to be a part of the 'appeasers'... ....at the beginning of the book I felt certain he would be part of this group till he became the Prime Minister
this book reads like a good mystery, ...at times I almost lost myself in this ...I'm sure that a lot of this is the reading of the posts & keeping up with the varying ideas & points of interest
Deb
-
DANA, I think there is no doubt that England should have been placed on
a strong military basis much earlier. The pre-WWII muddle was almost
inevitable without that. But so soon after the horrors of WWI, I can so
easily understand why people wanted to put all that behind them and could not bear to think of anything but peace.
I found this photo of the evacuation of some children. It was a pang to read that the parents sent their children off not knowing where they were going or how to get in touch with them.
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/war/evacuation.htm
-
Bookad, I agree with you that the book reads like a good mystery. I'm still not quite caught up, but that's just how I read it on the way home, even though of course I knew in general what was going to happen.
-
While I am reading the book, I am getting impatient with how long it takes the Parliament to make decisions and Chamberlain's total unawareness of the mess he has the country in. What was he thinking? My impatience comes from living in our now fast technologist world of today, I am sure.
Wasn't that a sad time for those children being evacuated from their parents and homes? Remember when we read about the island, Guernsey? That happened there also. It was well portrayed in the movie. Made one feel so sad for those children.
Remember that "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" started that way???
-
Comments On Post WW II U.S. and U.K. Preparedness and Current U.K. Economic Strength
Regarding the recent comment on the lack of U.K military preparedness in 1939 the lesson seems to have been rather well learned. True both the U.K. and U.S. immediately rapidly demobilized at the end of WW II, but not to the extent of WW I. Also the rapid development of the Cold War quickly made preparedness a key U.S. and Western European priority. Even the economically ill U.K. and other west European countries participated with the cold war NATO organization coming into being in the early 1950’s.
Regarding the military position of the U.K. today it seems inclined to keep its military modern and sufficient to maintain a prominent position in the NATO origination. Though its worldwide Empire is gone It has been a significant participant in recent anti terrorists operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Even though the U.K. today, has not recovered from the recent (2008-09) world economic crisis as rapidly as the U.S., it too has had significant improvements to date with at least favorable prospects for the future. Also the U.K.’S historic leadership in World finance and Banking has survived, assuring it at least a prominent position in today’s World economics councils.
-
Further Comment on Parliamentary Government:
Actually the Parliamentary system is capable of very rapid policy change. A single vote of the Parliament can immediately replace a Government. Perhaps that’s why the whip system was instituted to avoid quick frivolous spur of the moment changes. I agree in 1937 -39 it certainly succeeded in keeping a government in power despite the obvious weakness of its position.
In Contrast in the U.S. we must wait until the next general election to change a government. That might be as long as four years. Also in the U.S. Congress we too have essentially the same whip system equally active in keeping their individual members in line with the party platform.
-
Thank you, Lynne, for your helpful responses to our questions. You've made this time come alive with your detailed research. I also appreciate all of the participant's research and comments from your own recollections. I was struck by how much England's people suffered due to the sending away of their children, the blackouts, rationing, lack of information, etc.... all that, while their country wasn't actually making any headway in the war. The one comment from an official who scolded a pilot for dropping still-bundled pamphlets over Germany spoke of the government's denial of the fact that they had declared war: "Good God. You might have killed someone!" It is painful to read how most of Chamberlain's men were deluding themselves with wishful thinking and how most officials seemed to be stuck in the mode of "it isn't cricket" to speak against the government or even speak against the "enemy", although a few of Chamberlain's men thought it was quite all right to spy on their critics in their own government.
-
Library called my book back. I'll catch up when I can check it out again.
-
It's a Wednesday and at noon our city tests its tornado warning system, a long blasting sound, something perhaps similar to an air raid signal? I don't know.
How frightening that must have been.
"The misery was made even worse by the blackout, the most detested disruption of the war, which in the words of one historian, 'transformed conditions of life more thoroughly than any other single feature of the conflict. During the phone war period it was far more dangerous to walk the streets of London at night than to be at the front in France."
Total blackness! I experienced that once years ago while on a cave expedition. We spent the night and it was very scary; we couldn't tell the floor from the wall from the ceiling. I slept very little as we were interrupting the bats and later we heard humans were not allowed to do that anymore.
Were there air raid shelters in WWI?
Thanks, HAROLD, for your informative, as always, posts on England's strengths, current and historical. And, yes, I've always wondered about the Maginot Line; that just seems so ridiculous that France believed in it! After WWI particularly!
ANN, you are so right about technology today; our impatience, we live in a fast world. I often wish it were not so, but then we would not be gathered here to discuss Britain, Chamberlain, and WWII.
PATH: We are waiting for you to catch up and post your opinions! You are always so astute!
And, BOOKAD, we are happy you got home safely with spring awaiting! Isn't it wonderful! Thanks for your post. Can you imagine sending children off not knowing why and the misery of doing nothing! And not being told by your government or the media what was going on?
And the Ministry of Information! (pgs.251-252) Some of that is hilarious!
BABI, thanks for that site, that photo of the little boy is precious with his knee socks and his little case. How dreadful for parents and the children to be so disrupted of family life!
-
The Maginot Line - remarkable!
"Crucially, the Line was more than simple geography and concrete: it had been designed with the latest in technological and engineering know-how. The larger forts were over six storeys deep, vast underground complexes that included hospitals, trains and long air-conditioned galleries. Soldiers could live and sleep underground, while internal machine gun posts and traps repelled any intruders. The Maginot Line was certainly an advanced defensive position - it is believed that some areas could withstand an Atom Bomb - and the forts became a marvel of their age, as kings, presidents and other dignitaries visited these futuristic subterranean dwellings."
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa072001a.htm
-
SHEILA! I will remember to recommend Olson's book, THE CITIZENS OF LONDON. Sometime ago, I read a biography of Pamela Harrison - wife of Averill, I think it was her 3rd, 4th marriage, each one more spectacular, and finally, with Harriman's money pledged to the Democratic party she was given the post of Ambassador to France and while swimming in Paris she died. What I remember about the book is the fantastic wealth of Harriman!
-
In Message #318 Ella asked:
Do any of you remember John Maynard Keynes (message 238) that the group consulted? I think his philosophy became known as the Keynesian theory of economics and was vigorously practiced by governments for years?
Keynesian Theory gives the Government a major role in the management of the national economy. The Keynesian prescription for saving capitalism was that times of severe economic distress required active Government intervention. The Government was to intervene to create new jobs, provide relief programs for the unemployed and aid business who avoiding layoffs or for business expansion to create new jobs. In such a crisis the government should lower taxes to the extent of running huge deficits to cover the cost of the recovery operations. In Good economic times Keynesian theory continued The role of Government should reverse. It should drop all the then unnecessary make work measures and let the economy function more or less on its own as it should under the capitalist model. The Government should not only avoid any continuance of deficit financing, it should raise taxes to the extent necessary to pay back the deficits incurred during the crisis.
I think the U.S. has been more prone to follow Keynesian economic program than the U.K. The Roosevelt new deal, and the George Bush/ early Obama response to the 2008 crisis certainly had Keynesian earmarks. I suspect that the current Labor government in the U.K. too probably followed the Keynesian model, but the program of the post WW II Labor government by their Nationalization of Utilities and major heavy Industries rejected Keynes for the socialism of Marx. T
The Principal problem with Keynesian economic theory in the U.S. is that Governments seem to do the right thing during the time of distress but they fail to follow through when good times return. In other words instead of letting the restored economy function on its own they tend to create new spending programs and are reluctant to increase taxes to pay off the debt incurred during the years of deficit. The result is continuing increasing deficits and rising inflation. Perhaps what this world needs is a new Economic theorist who would derive a practical theory for a steady state economy that will avoid both the dizzily high peaks and gruesome lows that have plagued our past economic lives.
-
Yes, governments have trouble letting go of spending, and politicians facing elections don't want to raise taxes.
-
The extent of control over the press in England at this time is amazing. The Government, the politicians, and the newspaper owners almost completely controlled what information was given to the public; as a result, the average man had no notion of how serious the international situation was.
I wonder how controlled the American press was at this time? Obviously much less than the English, since the American journalists were appalled at English censorship, but I bet it was more controlled than now.
-
This book is sooooooooo interesting! I do not want to put it down. Thank you, Lynne, for all of your research, and your style of writing.
I feel so sad, for both the parents and children, who were separated in England. As a child, I would have been terrified. As a parent, my mind would have been constantly on my missing children.
One of the things that I have been thinking about as I read, is how fortunate it was that Mtrs. Simpson entered the life of the Prince of Wales. He was so pro Hitler, and Germany, I have been thinking about how different England, and the world would be, if he had not fallen in love with her. From something I read in this book, the British upper class were very commited to the class system. How sad, for the children from the East End, being thrust iinto into such a different way of life. What a shock it must have been for all of the Lords and Ladies.
I remember Black Outs. We lived on the coast of Southern California. It was frightening. Everyone had to paint the lights on their cars, so that they could not be seen from the air. Our windows had to be blacked out. All along the beach were gun emplacements. We did have air raids, too. However, I do not remember ever going to a shelter. We just stayed home, at night. I also remember having to duck under my desk, as a school child.
Sheila
-
PatH, I share your views about the English press. I, too, wonder how much American publishing takes it's orders from the government. For that matter, how about radio and television? I think the new technology helps us get more of the news, although not all of it is truth.
Sheila
-
ELLA, thanks for that information about the Maginot Line. Since I've
heard so much about the 'trenches', I had a mental picture of miles of
trenches as the Maginot Line. It makes much more sense to know that there
were forts and underground complexes.
I was intrigued and amused by the wide range of things moved to safety from London, from the Coronation Chair and the paintings in the National Gallery, to a collection of cricket memorabilia. Do you think we would do the same for our baseball 'Hall of Fame'?
-
I can just see it now - Archie Bunker's chair being spirited away for safe keeping. ::)
-
On August 23, 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non aggression pact which stunned Great Britain
Hitler with his fascism and Stalin with his communism were always undeclared ememies. The non aggression pact was a sham on both sides and was an attempt by each to lull the other into a false sense of security to increase the impact when the pact was broken without warning.
One can only surmise that Hitler and Stalin felt that the creation of an apparent power bloc might induce Britain to capitulate without firing a shot especially in view of how reticent the British government was to upset Germany on its own.
When Hitler did attack Russia it was surprising in view of his 1930s intensity, refinement and production of high speed mechanised transportation that conveying German guns etc into Russia included the use of 250,000 horses.
-
Comment on the English press suppression of news relative to the positions of the Troublesome Young Men group:
I think we should note that there was no formal governmental agency censoring of the English Press during this period. Though it is true that the principal mass circulation newspapers failed to print stories revealing the emerging dangers of Nazism or otherwise giving press support to the position of of the Troublesome Young Men, It was not because of censorship law but rather more a sign of respect for the national Government leaders.
I think U.S. newspaper too at times have shown a tendency to favor high leadership particularly a leadership enjoying a high level of popular support. In the 1960’s the mainstream press seem to have ignored reporting Whitehouse events of a spectacular social sort more likely to emerge from Hollywood than the Whitehouse. In both the U.S. and England since the 18th century there have been many small newspapers and Journals free and eager to publish anything including dissenting opinions of all sorts. . I suspect in the pre-WW II period there were other publications supporting many minority views including the activities of the Troublesome Young Men,
(Note a good example of the small press coverage in Regency England is the Prince Regent’s 1819 divorce case in the House of Lords that was fully covered by the popular press. The Prince lost.)
-
HAROLD, such a good post! What do you think of the VAT being proposed to pay off the government debt? This is not the proper place to discuss economics, in a way, but I think Britain has that tax now do they not?
SHEILA, that's interesting about the abdication crisis of the King at this time. It's true he was pro-Hitler but would he have been persuaded otherwise in time? The crisis just about ruined Churchill's leadership possibilities, sent him into the wilderness to write (see pg.82) and brought Neville Chamberlain to power. So much history in so little time.
You remember blackouts? Fascinating. I lived in the midwest and was in high school and we had no such occurrences.
THANKS, PATH, BABI AND FRYBABE FOR YOUR POSTS. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU - AND -
WE HAVE JUST TODAY TO FINISH THIS PORTION OF THE BOOK.
TOMORROW WE GO TO THE LAST CHAPTERS; Chapter 16 to the end of the book. And it does read like a mystery!
-
And so, we have to ask, WHAT WOKE UP GREAT BRITAIN TO THE PERIL THAT WAS FACING THEM?
We can learn from these lessons of history.
-
Indeed, there was no official censoring of the press pre-WWII. But there didn't have to be. The newspapers, or their owners, seemed to have bent over backward to oblige.
A different sort of information withholding: the German publishers of Mein Kampf would only give permission for publication of a very condensed English translation, with the worst parts left out. When Kitty Atholl read itin German, she gave a copy to Churchill, insisting he read it. They both found it appalling for it's specific blueprint of Hitler's intentions. I've read that elsewhere; that between the raving, the book says pretty exactly what Hitler meant to do, and almost succeeded in.
Has anyone read enough of Mein Kampf to comment on this?
-
When Bob and I were living in Strasbourg in 1968-9, bits of the Maginot Line were up for sale to the general public--said to have a good view of the Rhein through rather narrow windows, and to be damp with insect problems. I'm sorry we never looked at one.
-
I have never read Mein Kampf so I.m not going to comment except to say I have never doubted that it outlines the Hitler plan in its full gruesome details.
Regarding the VAT (Value added Tax) mentioned by Ella, Click the following Wikipedia article on it. I'll add further comment tomorrow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#Without_any_tax
-
So many interesting topics are coming up in this discussion. But then we are dealing with momentous events. Lynne's book, she tells us, was meant to be the story of Churchill's coming to power, and she has made it interesting. What a lot of dramatic detail along the way.
250,000 horses used in Hitlers eastern campaign! That's a lot of cavalry. Was he expecting to meet and fight those fierce Cossacks on their terms? I seem to remember that some horses were used to pull the the mechanized equipment out of the mud on the steppes.
Was Stalin taken in by Hitler like Chamberlain was? Did he really believe he had cut a deal with Hitler? Stalin certainly got a lot more than Chamberlain. A chunk of Poland and the Baltic states, and a free hand in Finland, as well as someting in the Balkans. All Chamberlain got was a promise of peace. At home there was all that acclamation at first. How quickly it became apparent that the country was without effective leadership. Lynne describes it so well. And then in Chapter 15, Churchill makes it obvious that he is ready and willing to lead, while still remaining loyal to the prime minister, and leaving it to the young rebels to win it for him in the House.
The press does play a role in it. I wonder if at times the press lords felt that they were 'controlling' the government. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a man like Lord Beaverbrook, with his three dailies, was considered a king maker. He was very close to Churchill during the war.
-
FRYBABE: :D
WEND, what really astonished me was that after declaring war on Germany,
the Chamberlain government was still making every effort not to annoy
or antagonize the Germans! It's crazy! But then, it was only a sham war
at that point, wasn't it?
People do have a way of refusing to believe what they don't want to
believe, don't they, PatH? I recall during the early day of the Communist
threat, arguing this point. I once commented, "If someone says he's
going to kick you, and then he does kick you, how can you say he doesn't
really mean it?"
-
The Maginot Line, the Berlin Wall, torn down and sold for souvenirs. Border walls. We have a border problem of our own here in the USA at the moment. It will be interesting to see how it is solved, won't it? Haven't they tried a wall?
I've never read Mein Kampf, PATH, but we know Hitler meant every word didn't he? What did the man want? More land, yes, but how much and at what sacrifice? The man was insane as you said, BABI. If I remember correctly, his generals of the army were opposed to his ideas, but were under his power.
WEND said Hitler and Stalin had always been undeclared enemies, but then for Hitler to attack Russia, the giant! Two giants at war.
1940 and the British public, the WATCHING COMMITTEE, Chamberlain, Churchill.
"I feel I ought to let you know that I am very deeply concerned about the way the war is going. It is not less deadly because it is silent....Can we suppose the Germans have not been thinking about what to do? Surely they have a plan. We have none. There is no sort of action in view except to wait on events." - Churchill
They need a big issue. A spark. And Churchill provided it.
Let's continue on with Chapter 16, okay? Back later, appointments all day.
-
And so, we have to ask, WHAT WOKE UP GREAT BRITAIN TO THE PERIL THAT WAS FACING THEM?
We can learn from these lessons of history.
Ella, it seems to me from reading the book so far, that Great Britain woke up very slowly. There were a handful of men and women who went against the grain of their society and, from the beginning, saw the dangers of Hitler and Germany. But even some of these lacked the courage of their convictions and didn't want to rock the boat too much. Chamberlain and his "insiders" squelched any opposition. It would take the act of ousting Chamberlain to wake up the government and the nation. As you indicate, they needed a big issue that would bring everyone together. A leading Tory MP, Sir Stafford Cripps, said "Th only way [the government] can be ousted is on a big issue, with the whole nation aroused." The big issue turned out to be the failure of British forces in Norway. But I think that this issue invited the opportunity to overthrow Chamberlain because of everything that had led up to it, and Chamberlain's feeble response to it. It seems to me it was just the last straw that put Chamberlain's policies and actions into focus. Even then, it was primarily because of the personal courage and understanding of history and government, possessed by Leo Amery that people were finally able to see that Chamberlain was not able to lead Britain in war. Thanks, to Lynne Olson's effective writing, I got chills when Leo Amery quoted Cromwell's words to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to lead the nation (p .294 in my hardback copy). Then it took the courage of the members of the House who called for a vote of confidence and then voted their convictions, despite the likelihood that it would ruin their careers if Chamberlain was not defeated.
-
Jonathan, I think some horses were also used on the Western Front by not only the Germans but also by the allies during the winter of 1944-45, but nowhere near on the scale of their use in Russia where the lack of improved roads coupled with extremely bad weather them a necessity.
Babi Historians refer to the War as it progressed from its outbreak, Sep 3, 1939 through May 10, 1940 when Hitler launched his invasion of Holland, Belgium and France as the "Phony War"
And Marcie: "There were a handful of men and women who went against the grain of their society and, from the beginning, saw the dangers of Hitler and Germany. But even some of these lacked the courage of their convictions and didn't want to rock the boat too much."
Your last sentence here quoted from your post #353 certainly describes Anthony Eden. He honestly knew how to describe himself when he said he lacked Spunk in that early prewar speech.
-
Hitler believed that "Jewish Bolshevism" had to be eradicated so that Germany could expand and the requisite amount of living space could be available for the Aryan race. His pact with the Russians was simply expedient for him at the time so that the Russians would not intervene in his early expansion plans, but he always intended to take on Russia at some point. He did it earlier than he intended, when he decided not to invade Britain, because he thought that when he defeated Russia (which he thought he would do easily) Britain would capitulate.
It is interesting that his generals, who had expressed doubts about all his previous invasion plans, all of which had been successful, did not express doubts about invading Russia. He tended to kick out anyone who disagreed with him anyway, and developed contempt for his generals because he had been right and they had been wrong judged by his early successes. He took over command of the army during the first year of the Russia conflict making him the only head of state to be responsible for strategy and tactics--even Stalin backed off intervening in tactics.
-
Dana, it's interesting that the leaders of both Britain (Chamberlain) and Germany (Hitler) at the time both didn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them. I wonder to what extent all political leaders are like that.
-
It's really frustrating to watch Chamberlain in action. He seems to have had only two driving forces: to keep in office by any means, and to have nothing to do with war, however he had to achieve that. These are coupled with considerable naivete in dealing with unscrupulous politicians and a lack of feel for military strategy or tactical problems.
So he lets Hitler string him along, believing H. won't really do much, and doing nothing to build up military power. He only agrees to help Poland if it’s invaded when forced to by public opinion, and he only finally declares war when all Parliament, including his own supporters, is totally outraged by the delay and might actually oust him.
He still doesn’t really mean it, though. He dawdles about, dropping propaganda leaflets. He doesn’t want to bomb strategic targets because he might "irritate" Germany. He’s declared war against the country, but Heaven forfend he should "irritate" them! It’s frustrating to read about, it must have been agonizing to live through.
-
Yeh Marcie--look at Stalin....He didn't tolerate dissent either!
Pat I think the book suggests later that Chamberlain quite likely delayed fighting because the Brits needed time to biuld up their practically non existant forces--if this book doesn't say that, then I definitely read it someplace else
-
MARCIE, what a good post, thanks for that. Does it strike anyone else that it was only the "upper class;" those that possibly had the time and money to organize committees, have dinner at the Carleton or other expensive places that eventually made a difference? Did the politicians ever go back to their constitutencies to talk to the people who had 8-5 jobs, who labored for their families and who sent their sons to the front to possibly be killed?
Where are the ordinary people, the public, in this history?
DANA, I think you are the one who read the book about Hitler? You state that Hitler intended to take on Russia at some point; why? Was there another reason besides the belief that Britain would capitulate?
PATH, yes, "agonizing to live through;" isn't it amazing that Britain, with its allies, won the war. We know they did but at this point it seems unlikely, doesn't it; when Hitler has the European continent in his sights.
I've put just a few questions for your consideration in the heading.
I am left with many questions after rereading Chapters 16 and 17. Lynne has done a wonderful job of teaching us how to change prime ministers, but is this the way the British vote on all issues?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
How did the newspaper accounts of British blunders play in America?
Do you think the age of Chamberlain was a factor in his indecisiveness?
What did you think of the parliamentary procedures in renouncing a prime minister?
What were the tactics for “getting rid of the government“?
Do you know of other prime ministers that have been ousted from the British parliament and what tactics were used?
Did you find the way of “voting” a better way than a ballot?
If you had been Chamberlain’s friend, could you have walked down the “no” corridor?
Were you surprised by Churchill’s speech in defense of Chamberlain?
Why was Churchill so hesitant in taking on the job of Prime Minister?
Could he have taken a more active role earlier and made a difference in the war?[/b]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
'Where are the ordinary people, the public, in this history?'
Why do you ask, Ella? This book isn't about them. It's about public affairs, alright, but only about how they are conducted at the highest levels. Unless you were schooled at 'Eton and Harrow, Cambridge and Oxford...and lived in Belgravia and Mayfair...'like it's described at the beginning of the book. And these are the ones who left the diaries, memoirs, letters and histories that the author found so helpful in writing her story.
-
Hi, JONATHAN, well, that's the title of the book, and, of course, as you say, the educated elites are the ones who left a legacy, but......
the author does talk about the unawareness of the public; the newspapers who kept the public ignorant because of pressure from the government.
My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their consitutents to talk of the issues. Hopefully, one of you know????
-
'My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their consitutents to talk of the issues.'
Another good question, Ella. I'm sure they do. And there must have been informed citizens expecting answers. Then again, one of us had a Churchill quote about him despairing of democracy after talking with the average citizen for five minutes. Now we read of Churchill not even being honest in the House about the true state of affairs. It's Hitler who has blundered in his Norway invasion.
What a sorry business. Isn't it strange to read about the appalling political mess in England, this once mighty, imperial power. Ruled a good part of the earth for several centuries. And now can't get their act together. Can't stop the dictator who in a few short years has pulled his ravaged country together and poses a threat to all the world. With not a few even in England wishing him good luck. Even the one-time king!
Go get him, Winnie. I just found a very good biography of Winston Churchill, by Paul Johnson, published last year. Every Churchill fan will love it. He was always ready for a war. The Norway debacle could be pinned on Chamberlain. As prime minister he couldn't really not take the blame. It seems to me like Amery was hoping he would be picked to replace Chamberlain.
-
And Churchill must have been the only man in England who wanted Edward VIII to stay on the throne. In the end WSC wrote the king's abdication speech. I believe.
-
I was stunned to read that the undersecretary of the foreign office told the House that “there was no conclusive proof that the Germans were bombing nonmilitary targets in Poland”. There were eye-witness reports from England’s own ambassador to Poland and the reports of British officers and citizens. The man flat-out lied.
Then the air minister is horrified at the idea of bombing German munitions factories and military installations in the Black Forest. That was private property! And the idea of bombing the heavy industry city of Essen was too fantastic for words. How in heaven’s name did men like these arrive at such key positions? Oh, well, it was peacetime, right? Give all the good, plum offices to the good old chums.
May I say I was most relieved to read the post that said Britain has been watchful not to let that happen again, but has maintained a good solid military basis since.
He [Hitler] tended to kick out anyone who disagreed with him anyway,
Dana
MARCIE, I had much the same reaction to Dana's information. Neither
tolerated criticism and demanded total unquestioning loyalty. Unfortunately,
they both got it from a sufficient number of people to allow them to do
as they wished.
-
My library doesn't have that book, JONATHAN, but there are so many others on Churchill; words such as soldier, stateman, artist, politician, flawed genius, last lion, triumph, tragedy, speeches, wicked wit, etc. beside the titles.
He was many things, but he was for the Empire wasn't he? No self rule for India and he bloody well wanted the King to keep his throne. Here is the abdication speech, which you think was written by Churchill.
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/King_Edward_VIII/index.htm
Perhaps we are taking a bit of history out of context. While looking up something about Neville Chamberlain in Google I read this:
In 1936 the Conservative government feared the spread of communism from the Soviet Union to the rest of Europe. Stanley Baldwin, the British prime minister, shared this concern and was fairly sympathetic to the military uprising in Spain against the left-wing Popular Front government.
Leon Blum, the prime minister of the Popular Front government in France, initially agreed to send aircraft and artillery to help the Republican Army in Spain. However, after coming under pressure from Stanley Baldwin and Anthony Eden in Britain, and more right-wing members of his own cabinet, he changed his mind.
Baldwin and Blum now called for all countries in Europe not to intervene in the Spanish Civil War. A Non-Intervention Agreement was drawn-up and was eventually signed by 27 countries including the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy. However, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini openly ignored the agreement and sent a large amount of military aid, including troops, to General Francisco Franco and his Nationalist forces.
When Chamberlain replaced Stanley Baldwin as prime minister he continued the policy of nonintervention. At the end of 1937 he took the controversial decision to send Sir Robert Hodgson to Burgos to be the British government's link with the Nationalist government.
On 13th March 1938 Leon Blum returned to office in France. When he began to argue for an end to the country's nonintervention policy, Chamberlain and the Foreign Office joined with the right-wing press in France and political figures such as Henri-Philippe Petain and Maurice Gamelin to bring him down. On 10th April 1938, Blum was replaced by Edouard Daladier, a politician who agreed not only with Chamberlain's Spanish strategy but his foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm
Chamberlain was old and possibly ill (he died in 1940) and the non-intervention policies of his government had been in effect for a few years. Could this have been the reason he could not act decisively?
-
Regarding Ella’s question to Jonathan, “My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their constituents to talk of the issues:”
I might ask the same question regarding our Congressional Representatives in the U.S. We are always hearing of adjournments for members of Congress to return to keep in touch with their constituents. Yet I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing from our guy who is a long time multi term member who succeeded his father who had held the seat for some 30 plus years before him.
True, I have not ever really wanted involvement with him although late last year I thought it would be interesting to invite him here to the Seniors Apartment complex where I live to address the seniors living here on the effect on their Medicare coverage resulting from the new then Proposed Universal Health Care legislation. I suspect he would not have touched that invitation with a ten foot pole.
True also I am sure members of our Congress particularly of the House of Representatives who have only 2 -year terms do keep in touch with their people. I am also sure it is true in the House of Commons in England where their original 5 year term might end at any time by the call for a new election. Back a few years ago when I frequently watch Tony Blair’s weekly questions from members, I recall many question were base on a letter the member had received from a constituent. In both Countries their job longevity requires their staying in touch.
-
Comment on the German Invasion of Norway:
British War planners had in the winter 1939-40 considered a possible British-French invasion of Norway as a strategic move against Germany and its supple of Iron ore and other war resources. Hitler beat them to the punch but the British acted promptly with a Naval and Anglo-French Expeditionary Force. Despite taking significant losses the British largely won the naval phase of the campaign but the land action after the first month tilted in favor of the German army resulting in a British Naval Evacuation of the allied forces during the first weeks of June 1940. Click the following for a Wikipedia account of the campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik
I say the British won the Naval phase of the campaign because the Royal Navy sunk more German surface ships (particularly destroyers) than they lost. This was the first and last time German Surface ships played a major role in a major German Military operation. Thereafter the role of German Surface ships was limited to single ships dashing into the Atlantic to attack allied conveys such as the 1941 Bismarck/Prince Eugen dash in the Atlantic to attack conveys, and the Dec 1943 North Cape operation of the Scharnhorst to attack an allied convey taking aid to Russia that resulted in the its sinking. Click the following for the Wikipedia account of this interesting Capital Ship Battle in midwinter arctic darkness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Cape
-
Much of the apparent mid 1930’s pro Fascist feeling of British rich and particularly the aristocrats seem to have come from their strong anti communist sentiment inherent from the Communist slaughter of the Russian Royal family and the police state regime then in power in the USSR. The Spanish Civil War involved a Republican faction associated with the Trotsky wing of the Communist movement and a nationalist fascist group led by an insurgent General, Francisco Franco. In the U.S there was considerable sentiment favoring the Republican Communist faction among American liberals. There was in fact a regiment of American volunteers that fought on the Republican Communist side. This was the subject of the Hemingway Novel “A Farewell to Arms.”
The Spanish Civil War ended in 1939 as WWII was beginning. It was expected that Franco would quickly enter the war on the Fascist side in repayment for the aid furnish him in the Civil War by Germany and Italy. But the wily Franco as Spanish dictator reneged and remained dictator of Spain until his Death in 1975. He thus became the only fascist dictator in Europe who survived WW II. He remained in power until his death in Nov 1975. During his last 6 years he had set up a succession involving the restoration of the old Bourbon monarchy that resulted in the present constitutional Monarchy with the King as chief of state and a parliamentary government after the English pattern.
-
I didn't realize Chamberlain died in 1940, ELLA. It could very well be
that partly explains his feeble handling of the demands of war. In all good
conscience, though, if he was ill he should have resigned.
Churchill even praised Chamberlain, saying “No man is more inflexible, more single-minded. He has a will of steel.” Well, I would say that is true. I had to smile, though, when I read that Lady Violet’s reaction was the same as mine. It was a shame that those qualities were being used for the goals Chamberlain had chosen. He continues to ignore everyone who disagrees with him, including the British people he is supposed to be serving. Another grim smile for Dick Law’s observation, “Everything is done to suppress independence of judgment, wherever it may show its hideous head.”
And of course, HAROLD, thanks to Churchill, the Royal Navy was the only
military branch even close to being on a good war footing the winter of
'30-'40.
-
BABI, why do you think Churchill urged Chamberlain to remain in office? (pg.306) This was after Chamberlain informed Winston that he was going to resign?
All very strange, don't you think, in light of what we have been reading and discussing. None of that went over very big with Chamberlain's opponents
One Tory said bitterly that Chamberlain was clinging to office "like a dirty old piece of chewing gum on the leg of a chair."
Perhaps Churchill was trying to be kind to his old friend and knew that he was failing in health? And, perhaps, knew that it was the end for Chamberlain?
We don't know, of course.
-
Many in Parliament wanted Lord Halifax, rather than Churchill, as prime minister. Halifax was immensely wealthy; here are a few brief sentences about him from - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWhalifaxL.htm
"When Neville Chamberlain resigned in May, 1940, the new premier, Winston Churchill kept Lord Halifax as foreign secretary in order to give the impression that the British government was united against Adolf Hitler.
In December, 1940, Lord Halifax was replaced as foreign secretary by his long-term opponent, Anthony Eden. Halifax now became British ambassador to the United States.
Lord Halifax was the British delegate to the San Francisco Conference in March 1945, and attended the first session of the United Nations in 1945. He resigned as ambassador to the United States in May, 1946.
In his retirement Lord Halifax wrote his memoirs, Fulness of Days (1957) where he attempted to defend the policy of appeasement. Edward Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax, died at Garroby Hall, near York, on 23rd December, 1959."
His memoirs would be interesting to read wouldn't they?
-
Churchill, on his way up, could afford to be magnanimous and gracious to a colleague on his way down the ladder of political fortunes. Chamberlain certainlly cuts a sorry figure in the end. The failure of his appeasement policy left him looking both abject and pitiful. How hard he and others tried to stay out of war. Understandable wasn't it? Given the calamity of WWI, with its terrible destruction and loss of life.
What a situation to be in. I have to think of the United States facing the prospect of refighting the Civil War, twenty years after the first.
Churchill provided great leadership as prime minister. Could he have done equally well in that position in the years leading up to the confrontation with Hilter? The well-meaning and weak Chamberlain played into Hitler's hands, who in turn then proved himself the villain whom Churchill was eager to take on.
I've found another book on the subject that looks interesting: THE DUEL, 10 MAY - 31 JULY: THE EIGHTY - DAY STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHURCHILL AND HITLER, by the historian John Lukacs.
And so many memoirs. One that is fun to read, and often quoted by our author, is OLD MEN FORGET, by Duff Cooper. I've had it on my shelf for years, and finally getting around to reading it.
-
And there's William Shirer's: The Collapse of the Third Republic, An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940. Wasn't that a great read when it came out forty years ago? What we've all lived through, those of us who were young then!!
-
My wife is in the kitchen making us a dinner, with the radio on. And suddenly, loud and clear, I'm listenig to a rousing Battle Hymn of the Republic. Glorious, isn't it?
-
The Marsaillaise is alway very moving, too.
-
It's really frustrating to watch Chamberlain in action. He seems to have had only two driving forces: to keep in office by any means, and to have nothing to do with war, however he had to achieve that.
PatH Yes- Frustrating struck me as the key word indeed. It was frustrating even though we knew the historical outcome. The entire period of the prolonged refusal to go against Chamberlain was agony.
The masterly work of Leo Amery in swinging the issue despite every thing being thrown at him, including the attitude of Margesson seeking to deny him an audience, was breathtaking. His decision 'to quote or not to quote' Cromwell gauging the mood of the House as he proceeded struck me as coolness and command of a rare order, and shows him thinking on his feet at such a crucial stage. His quoting of Cromwell was using history in the same manner that Churchill was famous for!.
Amery's use of the Cromwellian quote is brilliant especially in the circumstances:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing! Depart, I say, and let us have done with you!
In the name of God go!
This was pure poetry and the impact devastated the government: it was all over!
The impact of that quotation was the culmination of Lynne Olson's book
-
Chamberlain gave Churchill a chance to do something; He made Lord of the Admiralty.
Boothby, once Churchill’s PPS, said “He will take no action to displace the man who at the
twelfth hour gave him his confidence, and got him at the head of a department which absorbs his interests and energies.” Hopeless as Chamberlain is, I can understand and respect Churchill’s stand.
ELLA, while I could respect Churchill’s refusal to attack or undermine
the man who placed him in office, I totally could not understand him
standing up in the House and making a strong speech supporting Chamberlain’s
position. Even less could I understand his urging Chamberlain not to
resign when the man was doing such an abominable job. He did not agree with
Chamberlains policies and had fought for stronger action by the government.
I would love to have some psychologist explain this man to me.
I see that Hore-Belisha actually tried to make some changes in the army, sacking three top generals and replacing them on the basis of merit, rather than class. He raised the pay of the regular soldiers and gave them a chance to rise to officer rank. So of course the ‘gentlemen’ officers persuaded Chamberlain to get rid of the troublemaker.
It was fascinating to read about Amery emerging as the link that began to draw all the dissidents together. He has found his place in history. And I agree with WEND; Amery's speech
and the tension-building day that led up to it has to be the high point in this story.
-
"Amery's use of the Cromwellian quote is brilliant especially in the circumstances"
Yes, indeed, WEND, and it put Churchill in the prime minister's seat. But that's not the end of our story.
Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in his government?
BABI, we must read a biography of Churchill. Perhaps that would explain the man to us, if it is possible.
JONATHAN, is the Duff Cooper book very good?
-
Ella Regarding Lord Halifax I don’t think he would have made a strong Wartime PM. He was too much link to Chamberlain and his appeasement policy. Initially also he had viewed Hitler and his Nazi government with favor. He would surely been susceptible to a negotiated Peace that left the U.K Independent to pursue its non-European (Colonial) interests but confirmed Hitler’s control of Continental Europe and free to pursue further expansion eastward in Russia.
Halifax Represented England Well through the war years as the U.K. ambassador to the U.S. He also played a major role as the U.K. Representative at the San Francisco that created the United Nations.
-
Churchill was in his element when he took control of the Admiralty in Sep 1940. A signal was sent to all units that. “Winnie was back.” In WW I when he was in the 1st Lord post he on his own had ordered the conversion of all fighting units from coal to oil burning. This major reconstruction task seems to have been accomplished without the unavailability of ships when they were needed.
During the early days of WWII under Churchill as its 1st Lord, the RN seems to have performed well in keeping German large units out of the North Atlantic. Churchill immediately]y order the Navy to set up a convey system for protecting merchant ships from both German Submarines and surface raiders. Also in the spring of 1940 the RN did well in their effort to keep German Navy surface ships out of the Conveys in the North Atlantic and in the evacuation of British and French Troops both from Norway and in June from Dunkirk. In short, Churchill as First Lord was the most vigorous of all the Cabinet officers in his prosecution of the War.
-
In 1941 or 42, I remember attending a lecture by William Shirer at the San Antonio Municipal Auditorium. I was in High School and Shier was home on a break from his London reporting Job. His lecture centered on the reaction of the English people to their wartime life during blitz. The only real detail I remember was a joke; something about a newly arrived American complaining to an English Friend about the continuing run of wet cloudy, foggy days. The American concluded his weather diatribe by pointing to one of the barrage balloons scarcely visible in the cloudy sky saying, “Why don’t they just cut those cables and let this Island sink.” Was it funny, Well everyone in the audience laughed.
We read in our book the details of the seemingly endless debate in Commons with the beleaguered Chamberlain holding on to the end. I had no idea of the details but as I remember it, on May 10, 1940 the morning San Antonio Newspaper carried the news that Germany had invaded Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg and Chamberlain had resigned and Winston Churchill had replaced him as PM.
-
what intrigued me after finishing the book... was MacMillan as Prime Minister following the war --all 3 P.M.'s became rather self-centered in their new roles, my way or the highway --Churchill, trying to look after everything, and not letting his war cabinet members any leeway, and MacMillan's bit over the Suez Canal, trying to regain Britain's central position with the canal ...(almost well here we go again, only this time it was Nigel Nickleson, son of Harold Nickolson who was trying to get the government to see the right from wrongness of their endeavour) --a new group, the next generation of youthful parliament members trying to get the government to see proper ethical prespecive
back to Chamberlain's governing & his war time efforts; I seem to remember there were 2 major sinking of British submarines with loss of hundreds of men, due to ?? lack of air cover with planes?? did Chamberlain take this into consideration in trying to appease Hitler, and letting British men initial a feeble war effort with lack of support
--men on what seemed like suicide missions not having proper guns, essentials like proper clothing when going to Norway for instance with its harsher climate--I'm wondering how Chamberlain considered these sad resulting situations in his management of his pseudo-war
its interesting that Churchill, who could be so astute in his managing of certain situations could be naive about the Chamberlain's use of him at the last few moments of Chamberlain's Prime Ministership
on another note--am reading the autobiography of Edward VIII, and both he and his brother's early education was very limited with tutors coming into the castle...and his political education didn't seem to come into being till after he became Prince of Wales, then his daddy took him into his fold and enlightened him; --anyway thats what I took from the book (both he and his brother, Queen Eliz.'s dad, went into the air cadets about age 12, or 13, spending about 6 years there --their initial upbring was very cloistered--so his views of government would be coming from quite a different sphere,
Deb
-
what a great read this book was, and it was wonderful that Lynne Olson commented on her ideas & research--the book became much richer for all the comments & ideas & links provided by everyone
thank you everyone I really enjoyed being a part of this group
Deb
-
I can't believe I'm posting again today, but have been looking thru the library room on seniorlearn....there is a post about literature read by the soldiers during the first world war....it caught my interest especially as I remember Macmillan (first world war) I think it was wounded & waiting for help & lying on the battlefield; so he delved into a book he had on him to pass the time....he would put it down & play dead when German's were near by checking their wounded/dead. ...
I always have a book with me but usually its to read while waiting in the food store; couldn't see myself calm enough to be reading in his situation
below is reply #196 from last November in the library forum:
I usually don’t read all the ads and junk and stuff that comes in my email, but couldn’t pass up one from Abebooks -- Discover the Reading Lists of World War I
The article talks about how the soldiers craved reading materials when they were statemated in the trenches and tells about their favorites. Two of those mentioned are books recently talked about at some length here on SeniorLearn – Kipling’s Kim and 39 Steps by John Buchan.
Trench Reading in WWI
And at the bottom of the page is a link to the story of another soldier reader – this time in Iraq.
[/color]
-
the link in the above note didn't work for me, but if you go to the reply site page 5 I believe in the library, the link there should take you to this item--I found it very interesting
Deb
-
HAROLD, Jean [Mabel] has a book she thinks you would like, and was looking for you over in
non-fiction. I left a note that I would let you know.
So, I knew that in the beginning America was strongly isolationist and did not want to become involved in the European War. Perhaps that began to change with the news of Hitler’s fierce and rapid takeover of so much of Europe. Still, Olson writes that Chamberlain’s phony war and do-nothing government reinforced that isolationism. The United States did not want ‘allies’ like that..
I cannot imagine how the Chamberlain supporters could hope to blame Churchill for the Norway fiasco. Though the idea was originally his, he was not the one responsible to sending soldiers over with inadequate arms, supplies, air cover or even warm clothing. He was, in fact, the only one in the cabinet who had been pushing for faster production of armament and supplies, and better use of the air arm.
I can see where someone backed by the wealth and status of the Cecil family could be “completely untrammeled by the worldly considerations of the average politician.” But the Cecils have such a long and fabulous history that I find myself pleased to see they were still strongly influential in British government, father and son.
-
DEB, how very good of you to call our attention to the post in the Library; yes I remember reading in our book of MacMillan in the trenches. Can't we all understand how reading eases the mind when it is troubled? It does for me and, Deb, like you, I usually have a book in the car or often in my purse.
I'm sure that families and friends are sending books to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
BABI, speaking of inadequate provisions for the fighting, I am reminded of when our soldiers first went to Iraq and the trucks they were driving were not sufficiently armored for the roadside bombs they were encountering. It caused such a clamor at home and it was quickly remedied I imagine.
The public must be informed! I think had the newspapers, the radio broadcasters, the politicians done their job in Britain some of the ensuing chaos could have been avoided. But there so many "ifs" in this book as is true of all history. Perhaps that is why we find it so fascinating.
I read every so often an article that students are not learning history in schools and universities. And who was said that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. I'm not getting that quote correct, but..........
What did all of you think of the last two chapters of the book? Were you satisfied with the ending?
-
HAROLD, I picked up a copy of Lynne Olson's book THE MURROW BOYS from my library and there is William L. Shirer all through the book. Pictures included. One wonders how the Library of Congress files all this information, most of the pictures are from there.
"What we've all lived through, those of us who were young then!!" - JONATHAN
I remember all the Murrow boys!
-
Ella
Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in the government
The man who never made a mistake never made anything was a widely used expression and there would be very few who would hold that Churchill had never been wrong in his life and so, in a peculiar, but necessary sort of way he was battle-hardened in real life.
And so in the one corner we had the Tory rebels, a very small number, who Lynne Olson says had never been a tight-knit band of brothers and possibly their flexibility and independence was essential in a fight where they were hopelessly outnumbered.
In the other corner was Chamberlain with a huge majority, standing over a collection of politicians who were under a rigid regime of bullying which the book recognises as being in excess of any esprit de corps automatically discouraging any originality and any potentially worthwhile input.
This very situation had created a safe haven for mediocrity: all they had to do was say yes and the odds were that they had a seat for life in the house in the dominant side. This, in itself is nothing rare: not only is the easy prestigious life one of great attraction to those who are in it, but moreover it also has a very substantial support base within the community.
Lynne Olson also advises that even after the removal of Chamberlain as prime minister, a very experienced old dog for a hard road reminded Churchill that despite his ascension to power he could expect little diminution in the anti-appeasement movement - they would hang around!
The enormity of the change in statutory authority just achieved in the parliament was such that Churchill needed a very careful gradual plan for transition to achieve two things:
1. Rapidly implement those changes requiring a high priority, (and there were plenty of them!).
2. Refrain from implementing massive shifts in authority which could be seen as provocative and constitute grounds for a carefully planned and explosive retaliation to return Chamberlain as prime minister.
With regard to Churchill's magnaminity toward Chamberlain, Lynne Olson records that very few in the House placed any credence in these generous utterances of Churchill and it was noted that no speech of his before or after carried such a lack of impact.
I feel that Churchill was not afraid of Chamberlain, but that he was avoiding any chance that the effort and success of the rebels could be undone.
Implementing rapid changes was the reason for Churchill to work exhausting hours whilst at the same time preventing any retaliation from the Chamberlain camp. His supporters, the Troublesome Young Men, anticipated being appointed to major positions as a reward for getting Churchill into power, however, Churchill left the cabinet virtually unchanged in order to prevent any massive shift in authority which might give rise to an upsurge of feeling against himself. The Rebels were allocated portfolios which they considered to be minor and beneath their dignity.
To the surprise of Boothby, his Ministry of Food portfolio considered a minor job, became incredibly interesting and important once he undertook the task. With his activities in this field he became one of the most popular men in the country. Likewise, Eden also found his role in India far more demanding than he anticipated.
Once his own position was secure Churchill subsequently brought some of the rebels into the major positions.
Churchill's motives in this early period of his Prime Ministership would be the least documented phase of that government because most of it was contained solely in Churchill's head and not committed to paper. Because of the situation Churchill would have had little opportunity or desire to confide in anyone. Despite criticism he carried the burden of having to act and keep straight on, going through the transitions and toughing it out in the House.
By virtue of the situation there was very little information in the way of records for Lynne Olson as an historian to use. This is evident from the paucity of detailed information about this phase in the book.
-
Once Churchill was in power the battlefield situation pretty well defined what was required of the new Government. It was to avoid immediate all-out defeat in France. It required that the British expeditionary force fighting there either stop the German advance or at least avoid surrender to be evacuated from the continent to England from where it would be available to fight another day. This was principally the work of the army, R.N. and R.A.F., not Government Ministers. True the London Government played a roll certainly in getting the great fleet of small boats together that succeed in brought more than 300,000 British and French army personnel home to England. But it was the Armed Serves that accomplished this task.
Later Churchill and his ministers had the task off resupplying these units with the heavy fighting equipment abandoned in France and having these forces ready to repel l a German cross channel invasion expected in the summer or fall of 1940. I think among the Government ministers in the summer and Fall of 1940, it was Churchill’s speeches that so effectively rallied the British determination to fight and the effect it had worldwide in rallying the Dominions of the British Commonwealth and even the U.S. and other neutrals to the British Cause.
-
'Ella
Quote
Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in the government?'
Good question from Ella, and good replies from Wend and Harold.
It's amazing how quickly Churchill went into action, providing that leadership that the country so desperately needed. A war to be won; but also a position to maintain at home. In a way Churchill must have felt that he had to fight on two fronts. He needed that majority and the 'confidence' in the Commons more than he needed a few rebels. Rebels would be the last thing he needed. Having been Lord of the Admiralty twice may have given him a dislike of people who rock the boat. People who bring on and fight the revolutions are seldom around when the dust settles.
Churchill was not a party man. He was a power unto himself. Despite feeling unsure of himself at times, even if he didn't let it show. And he could be ruthless, allowing that whip Margesson to determine who got the minor government positions, and to keep the backbenchers in line. The road ahead was rough, but his splendid speeches carried him along.
A quote I can't resist from Wend's post:
'Churchill's motives in this early period of his Prime Ministership would be the least documented phase of that government because most of it was contained solely in Churchill's head and not committed to paper.'
Eventually it was committed to paper, wasn't it? Churchill never did anything without leaving a record. What do the historians think of his accounts of what happened?
-
Ops! I think I've got my news Correspondents mixed up. It must have been Edward R. Murrow.not William L Shirer who I herd lecture in San Antonio described in message 381. Apparently it was Murrow who had reported from London during the Blitz.
-
Harold, it was probably Murrow you heard. Shirer, although "over there" during the war, had a soft voice, not a speaking voice; whereas Murrow's voice, of course, was very clear and consequently he did the radio broadcasting.
Churchill wrote 6 volumes on WWII in his retirement years, in between painting and brick laying. Wikipedia has a good, concise history of the man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
So, who, among us, will tackle any of those volumes? I would love to know Churchill's plans for the defense of Britain if Hitler had invaded.
So much of that history is tragic; death and destruction of a large part of the European continent! I'm attempting a history of Julius Caesar but, it too, is for a large part wars and killing and I'm not sure I will get very far with it.
-
Ella
And who was said that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.
Edmond Burke wrote "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
George Santayana is the one I see most often as the source. He wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" - The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
I actually thought the saying went way further back than that.
-
No doubt it was just me, I don't know what I expected, but the book ended abuptly I thought, with a bit of history of each of the rebels. And poor Amery, who had so valiantly helped Churchill to office with no reward except suspicion, had to endure his son's hanging.
How did the rest of you view the last two chapters? What did you expect? Or did you think about it?
-
Since I am way behind in my reading, I cannot comment on the ending. I do want to mention that I have been continually surprised that Churchill did not take a more active/forward role in removing Chamberlain. And then it just blew me away that he actually stood up for Chamberlain and encouraged him to stay. I am going to have to dig up a bio. I really want to know what was going through his mind or how he rationalized his actions or lack thereof. Could his bouts of depression which surely would have caused self doubt and indecision as well as a lack of mental energy have had anything to do with it?
-
Unbelievable!
I have a copy of 'The Gathering Storm', & 4 other of Winston Churchill's books. I found them at a garage sale, and bought them, after having picked up 'The Gathering Storm' while the owner of the book, was out fishing while at a friend's cottage two summers ago. Never quite got around to even lifting up the book till now.
excerpt from inside cover of The Gathering Storm:
'No great statesman of our time has had such a command of the English language as Winston S. Churchill. Few have had such a grasp of history or played so large a part in making it. Throughout his career Churchill preserved every scrap of significant material for the books he knew he would eventually write. Every order he issued every memorandum or personal telegram, was immediately set up in type, printed and filed. "I doubt," he says, "whether any similar record exists or has ever existed."
It is of no wonder that when it was announced that he would write the history of the Second World War there arose throughout the world an interest and excitement caused by no other publication of this century. The six volumes of The Second World War, of which The Gathering Storm is the first, fulfilled the highest expectations with which they were awaited. In 1953 Churchill wass awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
The Gathering Storm covers the period from the Treaty of Versailles to Churchill's appointment as Prime Minister in 1940. Its theme is "How the , speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm." The book is divided in two parts, the first of which, dealing with the period 1919-1939, sets forth the mistakes of the Allies after World War I, the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, the war in Spain the rape of Austria, the tragedy of Munich and its aftermath. The second part takes up the "twilight war of 1939 and 1940, from Germany's attack on Poland, through the invasion of Denmark and the battle for Norway, to the climatic and terrible moment just before Dunkirk when Hitler seemed on the threshold of victory. Then Churchill at last became Prime Minister. All his life, he felt, had been a preparation for this hour.
------
I found it interesting the reviewer allowed the British people to assume a part of the blame for their failure to partake in the war...not quite what I got our of the book we just finished I think.
Now I've copied the above my interest is up and I think I'll be reading this book...nice to see his slant on events!
-
HAROLD, you have peaked my interest. Please tell me the title of the book you are reading aboyt Edward VIII.
I felt the book ended abruptly. I was disappointed. But, overall, this is one of the best books I have ever read! There is a mini series broadcast on the military channel called: "The First World War". I find it fascinating, and am watching it for the 3rd time. There is another mini series called: "World At War". It begins with 1939, and continues through 1945.
The series"The First World War", is based upon a book. It is well worth reading.
Sheila
-
Lynne Olson also advises that even after the removal of Chamberlain as prime minister, a very experienced old dog for a hard road reminded Churchill that despite his ascension to power he could expect little diminution in the anti-appeasement movement - they would hang around!
Oops! I see I made a typo in the above statement - anti-appeasement should read pro-appeasement. Such a difference of meaning...sorry about that!
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
How did the newspaper accounts of British blunders play in America?
Do you think the age of Chamberlain was a factor in his indecisiveness?
What did you think of the parliamentary procedures in renouncing a prime minister?
What were the tactics for “getting rid of the government“?
Do you know of other prime ministers that have been ousted from the British parliament and what tactics were used?
Did you find the way of “voting” a better way than a ballot?
If you had been Chamberlain’s friend, could you have walked down the “no” corridor?
Were you surprised by Churchill’s speech in defense of Chamberlain?
Why was Churchill so hesitant in taking on the job of Prime Minister?
Could he have taken a more active role earlier and made a difference in the war?[/b]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I noticed, too, WEND, that thought Churchill retained most of Chamberlain's
ministers, he kept all the power firmly in his own hands. He did not rely
on any of them to do what needed to be done. Thank you for your thoughtful
analysis of that situation.
Some notes on individuals:
I was surprised to find that Lord Halifax, the other prospect for PM after Chamberlain, did not
want the job. He knew nothing about management of a war, and would have had to give that job to Churchill anyway. He seems to have been a very practical, self-aware man. He rose immeasurably in my esteem.
And Amery, who might have hoped for PM office himself considering the magnificent job he did of clearing Chamberlain out of the way, shows no signs of disappointment at the outcome. He was delighted with the way Churchill stepped up and took charge, and felt that to be “the justification of my own efforts to secure leadership worthy of the occasion.”
Ronald Cartland’s story continued to be one of both moral and physical courage. He was a
remarkable young man, and Lynn Olson does justice to him. All those who knew him seemed to feel the same sense of a tragic loss, not only family and friends, but to England itself.
I find it remarkable that a political correspondent wrote a letter to Chamberlain, that Chamberlain actually responded positively, and that Chamberlain arranged for Margesson to direct the Tory members to applaud and support Churchill’s report of July 4. ( I did find it depressing that “On cue, every Tory in the chamber jumped to his feet and loudly cheered the Prime Minister”. So many little mannequins.)
All in all, I have seen in this entire book examples of the difference it can make if one person
steps forward with the right action and the right words, at the right time. I doubt that political correspondent (Einzig) ever realized the full importance of his writing that letter.
-
DEB, how heavy is that book you "lifted" up? The Gathering Storm. Readable? Some of us might be interested in lifting up a copy ourselves.
WEND, thank you for your thoughtful post about the Churchill situation with Chamberlain. No, I doubt Churchill was afraid of much of anything political, but I find his treatment of Boothby, an old friend, unforgiveable. He ordered an investigation of the man who had done nothing illegal and in so doing made the remark he should "join a bomb disposal squad as the best way of rehabilitating himself in the eyes of his fellow men....after all, the bombs might not go off."
An example of his wit, which could be as cruel as it was eloquent and persuasive. A wartime adviser to Churchill said of him "The idea of having a friend who was of no practical use to him, but being a friend because he liked him, had no place." (pg. 352) What an indictment!
SHEILA, I don't think I have a military channel on TV, where is it? I have well over 350 channels, maybe more, but I hardly watch TV except on weekends if something is on BookTV that I like. I am reversing history, going back to the radio.
Back later for more comments. We have two more days for your opinions
We want to hear more of them!
-
serenesheila, I am not reading anything on Edward VIII. As a 10 year old I remember hearing the news as it unfolded over the radio. It was the second radio news event that I followed. The Year before the first big radio News events was the final Illness and death of Edwards Father George V.
I have read quite a bit of English History particularly on the 18th century and the following regency period. Also on Naval history particularly the Bounty affair, Napoleonic war events, WW I. WW II and the 1982 Falkland Island War.
I too have seen the Military Channel WW II series. I think it is quite good. All cable companies use their own numbering system It comes to me as a part of my Time Warner extended package that Includes most sports channels. It is a digital channel that they package with their Sports package. The Military Channel is one of the few other than Sports events that I watch frequently.
-
"The Gathering Storm" is the first book of Churchill's 6 volume history of WWII, ending with Chamberlain's resignation and the King asking Churchill to form a new government. My copy is almost 700 pages. I haven't read it, but my husband, a history fan, read all 6, so it must be somewhat readable, though apparently it is indeed filled with Churchill's saved minutes and memoranda. Bob remarked to me once "Churchill was a great man with a memorandum".
-
I own all of Churchhill's books. I have read one or two of them. However now I cannot read them because they are not large print and my vision is so bad that I cannot read anything unless it is on Kindle or if it is large print. However I am happy that I own those books,
-
The question of what Churchill was thinking, and what were his motives, as he took over are very interesting to me. I should read the relevant parts of "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour", but I suspect this won't be objectively useful. Here are the last 2 paragraphs of "The Gathering Storm". We have to remember that they were written after the war, and he both knew he had done a good job and was still hurting at being ousted.
"Thus, then, on the night of the tenth of May, at the outset of this mighty battle,I acquired the chief power in the State, which henceforth I wielded in ever-growing measure for five years and three months of world war, at the end of which time, all our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs.
During these last crowded days of the political crisis, my pulse had not quickened at any moment. I took it all as it came. But I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3 A.M.,I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I were walking with Destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and fot this trial. Eleven years in the political wilderness had freed me from ordinary party antagonisms. My warnings over the last six uears had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams."
-
An example of his wit, which could be as cruel as it was eloquent and persuasive. A wartime adviser to Churchill said of him "The idea of
having a friend who was of no practical use to him, but being a friend
because he liked him, had no place." (pg. 352) What an indictment!(
ELLA)
I agree, ELLA, it was a very harsh indictment. I don't see anything similar
anywhere else in the book, though, and I am hesitant to accept as valid
this single statement by a 'wartime advisor'. We have no idea of the impartiality..or otherwise...of this comment.
I am often reminded of my father's advice: "Don't believe anything you
hear and only half of what you see."
I was pleased when MacMillan finally found his milieu. He found the work he was suited for and it made all the difference.. Even the thoroughly nasty Rab Butler was a changed man after he found the work that was a good fit for him. I firmly believe many an unhappy and/or incompetent soul would be a changed man/woman if they only found the work they were born to do.
I’m surprised that Eden was ever made PM, and not at all surprised that he couldn’t handle the job. All his life he had chosen the easy road, avoiding difficulty and hassles at all cost. Why would anyone think he had acquired responsibility and backbone at that late date.
-
Hi BABI! Eden is such an aristocratic looking fellow, so dapper, one would think he would make an excellent p.m., so unlike the rotund figure of Churchill. Aren't looks deceiving! Eden couldn't take the tough, back-room intrigues, our book says.
JOANG, so sorry about your eyes, do you listen to audio books? And isn't it a miracle that you can get books on your Kindle and make them large print? Thanks for posting!
HAROLD, I did find a listing in a drawer of all cable channels by subject matter and there is the military history one. I just never thought of watching it and with spring approaching I probably won't for awhile. How do you know what program is going to be on? Do you get a TV guide? Perhaps I should????
THANK YOU, PATH - how very interesting - I must get it and read THE GATHERING STORM. So Churchill is sleeping well is he! "My warnings over the last six uears had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it."
Yes, a bit of bitterness creeps in when he writes that all enemies had surrended and thus it was he was discmissed from office! He must have felt so old and useless then, his duties finished! But he came back for another four years didn't he!
Everyone has seen that picture of the three Allied leaders sitting down at Yalta with Churchill on the left, FDR in the middle and Stalin on the right. Here it is:
http://www.history.com/photos/world-war-ii-political-leaders/photo4
Churchill usually has a cigar in his mouth, FDR with a cigarette between his fingers.
Has anything in this book changed your thinking toward any of these leaders?
-
The book told the agonizingly slow process of recognition that the government must be changed in order to "save England." I absolutely felt the frustration of the small group of men and women who realized that appeasement was the wrong course and who courageously worked to change that. Lynne Olson managed to provide a wealth of details about that long process while keeping me in suspense. The book doesn't have exactly a Hollywood ending. While "England was saved," the author reveals the flaws in various characters and their disappointments, as she does all along in the book. I think that's a strength of the book. We get to see the reality of the individuals involved...both their strengths and weaknesses.
-
HAROLD, I confused something that BOOKAD had posted, thinking it was you. I apologize.
BOOKAD, would you kindly tell me the title of the autobio of EDWARD VIII, which you are reading? How long did was he king? When was he crowned, and when did he abdicate?
ELLA, what type of TV service do you have? I have DIRECTV, With it it is not necessary to have TV Guide. I can search two weeks worth of listings for each of the channels. Then pre program the programs I want to program. The military channel also runs "The Gathering Storm", periodically.
The final two chapters, seemed out of alignment, with the rest of the book, to me. I do not think that I had any set expectations of how it would end. However, the way it did end, was disappointing to me.
I am looking forward to Lyne Olson's latest book, "Citizens of London". It is about Ed Murrow, and Averall Harriman. Both had lengthy affairs with two of Churchill's daughters. There is also a third American, whose name is not at all familiar to me.
Sheila
-
Regarding Eden as PM, I certainly a remember his 1957 Suez Canal venture that almost precipitated WW III when the Soviet Union got involved. Also The U.S under Eisenhower and the U.N. violently opposed the the English French and Israeli invasion of Egypt. The Egyptians sank a number of ships in the canal effectively closing it for a decade thereafter. Eden's career was effectively terminated.
Eden like Attlee and other P.M. of the period did accept a Peerage so was technically eligible to sit in the House of Lords, but I have never herd of him as active there. Churchill had declined the offered Peerage and ended his life quite satisfied with his Knighthood with the Sir Winston title.
Harold Macmillan succeeded Eden as PM and despite the initial poor prospects for longevity managed a successful term during which Britain began a much needed post war economic recovery and a new lesser world political role.
Ella, yes since 2006 I have had an on screen TV guide furnished by Time Warner as a part om my extended high definition package that also includes a Sports package as well as some several hundred digital channels including the military channel and maybe a dozen other other channels that I sometimes tune. Most of the other channels are uninteresting and ignored but they are part of the package. The on-screen TV guide is wonderful and always current for a week or 10 days. Having it is worth the extra $5 a month.
-
Marcie I agree with your assessment and I too felt the frustration depicted in the book.
Lynne Olson's first achievement was her ability to accommodate such a huge amount of historical fact and comment in the form of a coherent spell binding story.
I liked the way the the many quotations were seamlessly embedded within the narrative. The reader's interest is subtly heightened with emotion on a limited number of occasions, such as disgust at the use of a "dirty tricks department" in the domestic phone tapping issue, "keeping the nation in the dark" as to the real danger and vulnerability of Britain and the incurable appeasement of Hitler.
The Notes, Index and Bibliography give a glimpse into the existence of related and peripheral issues which don't necessarily come to mind whilst reading and also give an appreciation of the magnitude of the research undertaken by the author.
Thank you Ella and Harold for selecting such an interesting, well reseached book. It held my attention from beginning to end and included much information that was new to me. I enjoyed meeting you and all the participants and found the discussion very stimulating. Thank you all!
-
serenesheila Edward VIII never had a formal carnation. It was delayed pending resolution of the emerging marriage crisis that resulted inhis terminating Abdication . He succeeded as King the instant of his father's death. The carnation is a formal installation ceremony but unnecessary to complete the legality of the succession.
-
Sheila
the book about Edward VIII is titled " A King's Story, the memoirs of the duke of windsor" --the book I have from the library was published in 1951--interesting the book classif # on the spine is 941.084Edw (most books have a sirname 3 letter, which in this case would be Windsor)--I am barely 100 pages into the book, not that its not interesting, but I have about 5 other books on the go at the same time, some more captivating than others; ...but there is a picture on the insert of this book that shows Edward leaving Westminster after his first and last opening of parliament Nov. 3, 1936
I did enjoy 'The Gathering Storm', when I read a number of pages into it a couple of summers ago, and felt at the time it would not be a hardship at all to read it... but have not been interested enough till reading this month's book--now I am curious to know how Winston saw things, and if he communicated any particular feelings about the events leading up to his becoming Prime Minister in this book
I did read somewhere that Winston suffered from bouts of depression, and it became a problem following his time as Prime Minister, what with all the activities of running the war, ...sort of a let down with the calm after the storm I guess.
Another book I read " The Bielski Brothers" by Peter Duffy, ...{about 3 brothers in Germany who managed to conceal over 900 people during the Nazi regime in a forested area of Germany...thereby saving their lives}.....-one of the Bielski brothers succumbed with--the let down following the adrenalin rush of being constantly on the go and responsible for so many people's lives.. he couldn't deal with the aftermath of a quiet life after all the bustle....
I just found this to be an interesting sidenote to find how a person handles the follow-up
Churchill was in his 'element' during the war years...!!
Deb
-
Ella. thank you and Harold for allowing me to go along for the ride in this discussion eventhough I was not reading the book...I have learned a lot from the posts all of you made here..
Yes Ella, I listen to audio books but they are much too expensive for me to own many of them. The Kindle is perect for me but the competion between Amazon and Barns and Noble with their nook is causing a problem in availability of books on the Kindle. Oh well something will work out even if I have to buy a page magnifier to read a regular print book with a page magnifier... Part of my eye problem is caused by light. So it is tricky as to what will work right...
thanks again for allowing me to sit through your discussion. I am reading the Citizens of England by Lynne Olson on Kindle. It is a very good book. Joan Grimes
-
'I felt as if I were walking with Destiny...'
Thank you, Pat, for those two wonderful, concluding paragraphs from Churchill's The Gathering Storm. A great bit of summing up of what he had come through. And all along, as he tells us, he kept his finger on his pulse. Haha. And wondering, as he seems to hint, is it a dream? What a character. I wonder what Shakespeare might have done with him. The Man of Destiny? Or, Destiny Meets His Match?
He felt bitter about being dismissed, after subduing all England's foes. But perhaps the electorate showed great wisdom in allowing the hero to exit the stage in all his glory. Who can blame the electorate, if it did not want to push its luck with this amazing man who fumbled as often as he scored. One historian describes Churchill's career as a game of snakes and ladders.
'Eleven years in the political wilderness had freed me from ordinary party antagonisms.'
I try to relate that with how well he kept himself in the background, out of the conspiracy, as described in the book. And how he contended with those party antagonisms during the first six months as prime minister. The political climate in England was acrimonious in the thirties, to say the least'
'Facts are better than dreams.'
I think Churchill enjoyed both. And took a hand in bringing both about. Destiny had a hard time keeping up with him.
-
I find it interesting that Dorothy and Harold Macmillan are the first and the last in the photo section. Still together despite everything.
Boothby. It's hard to know what to read into that face. There must have been things about him that made Churchill wish he would blow himself up on a bomb demolition mission. Perhaps sleaze. Christine Keeler in her book, The Truth At Last, on hearing that he had been made a lord, shook her head and thought:
'A peer of the realm? It still (2001) seems weird to me.'
-
MARCIE, Ronald Tree made an observation which I believe was accurate,
…that if Parliament could not operate effectively to meet the country’s
need in this ‘phony war’ crisis, then it was an institution that had
failed in its purpose. changes were necessary, weren't they? The old system
was simply a roadblock to any effective action.
Churchill was a great war minister, as I'm sure all will agree. I can
understand, though, how a people weary of war and lacking so much, would like
the idea of putting it all behind them, retiring Churchill will respect and honor,
and choosing a labour leader who was promising to restore prosperity and an
end to the queues for everything. They couldn't actually do that, of course.
There was too much to be done to be accomplished in a few years.
I have no quarrel with the way the book ended. Lynne Olson was telling the story of
how Churchill came to power in time to lead England through WWII. Her only further commentary was to let us know what became of the key leaders.
I especially appreciated knowing about Cartland. That was a poignant story and I am glad
to have learned about this man and his actions. I was glad to learn that MacMillan found his
place and work in life.
I'm really glad, ELLA, that you introduced me to this book. I would never have known about
it otherwise, and I have found it most rewarding. Ms. Olson has written an excellent book and
is to be congratulated. Thank you, Lynne, for your thorough research and even-handed depiction of these men and women.
-
I'm going to be compiling a few complimentary comments about Lynne's book (without quoting sources) and email them to her; thanking her for visiting us during our discussion.
And I can't begin to thank you - ALL OF YOU - enough for participating!
It was great fun and I looked forward so much to coming here every day to read your comments.
If you have anything else to add, please do so today!
We will do another nonfiction someday, do you have suggestions?
Do you read much nonfiction?
-
Before we leave altogether, do you have any comments to make about how history has treated the big three wartime leaders, Churchill, FDR, Stalin?
Has there been any leaders of their stature since? Anyone to compare? Or is just wartime that produces such men?
Europe was in the throes of two deadly dictators, HItler and Stalin, during the 20th century, a very turbulent bloody century. And now the European Union; do you know how it is faring? Will it succeed?
This is my kind of book; I like nonfiction and I like a book that reads well, keeps my interest and is researched well. I think Lynne Olson has done a good service in making history come alive and I hope young people can take advantage of such books to enrich their knowledge.
-
I too much enjoyed this discussion. It was an interesting review of the world event that certainly shaped my entire life. Also I see both Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan.in a much truer perspective than before. Thanks to all of you who have participated.
Ella, do you think we can leave the board open for the next two weeks for continuing comment on the outcome of the U.K. General election that I think is May 6th, next Thursday? Apparently there is now a good chance \fort the new Democrat party to at leas make substantial gains at the expense of both Conservative and Labor.
-
Thank you very much, Ella and Harold, for your thoughtful leadership of this very interesting discussion. And many thanks to all of the other participants for all you shared. I learned a lot from reading the book and from everyone's comments. It certainly has motivated me to read more about some of the people mentioned in the book.
-
This has been a fascinating discussion and a wonderful book. Thanks to Ella and Harold for their usual excellant job. I look forward to the next non-fiction discussion.
-
Thanks to Ella and Harold. Thanks to everybody for a great discussion. What an interesting book. I was great fun to participate.
-
After the intolerable suspense culminating in the events of the 10th of May, the last chapters seem a bit anticlimactic until you think about it. The book had to end that way. We need to know what happened to all the characters, and how this revolt affected their lives. And it has a certain dramatic satisfaction, a bit like a Shakespearean play after a lot of main characters have killed each other off, and, in the last scene, some official or the new king or whoever comes in and ties up the loose ends.
-
This is a remarkable book. It does a really good job of explaining this important bit of history in a lively, interesting, clear and intelligible way. And although this is a period that interests me, I don't think I would have gotten around to reading it except for this discussion.
Thank you, Ella and Harold, for picking it and doing such a good job of leading the discussion. And thank you, fellow discussers for being so interesting.
And thanks, Lynne, for writing it.
-
Right on, Pat, on the two postscript chapters. There a lot to said for them. Most readers love the PSs.
-
This has been a wonderful book, and discussion, for me. I really like the way Lynne Olson writes. From the time the war began, when I was a child, I revered both Chuchill and Roosevelt. The more I learn about boh of them, the less reverance I have for them. But, I firmly believe that things could have well turned out, differently, without them! I loved all of the detail of this book. I applaud the author, for the vast amount of research that she went into.
Ella, and Harold, thank you much, for selecting this book, for us. Thanks to everyone who participated, for all of the comments, and new information. This has been a wonderful adventure for me. I am looking forward to the next discussion, of a non fiction book.
Sheila
-
Ah, SHEILA, when we are children we are told only the good things about our heros. It is always a shock to learn they were imperfect, just like ourselves. In a way, though, it is most
encouraging to learn that great things can be done by flawed people.
-
Since Ella asks for suggestions, I would like to propose William Manchester's biography of Douglas MacArthur: AMERICAN CAESAR.
Or, Ulysses S. Grant's: PERSONAL MEMOIRS. Edmund Wilson, it says on the cover of my copy, described it as 'The most remarkable work of its kind since the COMMENTARIES of Julius Caesar.
-
How true, BABI. We are all flawed people. It is encouraging to know that I do not have to be perfect!
I just ordered a new, non fiction book. It is called "George, Nicholas, and Wilheim". by Miranda Carter. Have any of the rest of you read it? It sounds interesting. The more I learn, the more I want to learn.
Sheila
-
serenesheila You might mention"George, Nicholas, and Wilheim". by Miranda Carter on the Non Fiction Board. As you know that is a good place to post comment on new nonfiction titles. Many of our discussions have originated from such a post. This title seems to discuss WW I through three Kings, two of which did not survive the War. Interesting!
-
HAROLD, I did post about that book, in the non fiction section. It begins in 1859, and ends at WWI. Two of the three Kings were dead by then. Only George survived.
Sheila
-
Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. I am a listmaker and then every one inawhile I throw the lists away and start anew! BookTV is a good source of suggested reading also. This last Sunday I listened to Stephen Fried talking about his book APPETITE FOR AMERICA, about the Harvey Restaurants throughout the West early in the 20th century, the railroads, the Harvey Girls. I have it reserved at my library. Something different from books about wars which are so plentiful aren't they?
I received the following email from Lynne Olson, our author, and it compliments all of you!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ella,
Many, many thanks for picking my book and for your outstanding conducting of the discussion. All the remarks and comments were so much fun to read -- and really enlightening, too! I'm just sorry I didn't have more time to participate. I think I learned more than the other participants did.
Again, thank you so much.
All the best,
Lynne
P.S. And, yes, the comments did make my day.
-
DAVID CAMERON WINS.
DIFFICULT DAYS AHEAD - WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK OF THE NEW GOVERMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN?
Here is the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/
-
Ella, I'm going to read more before I can venture an opinion. There is quite a bit of information about David Cameron at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron
-
When I left this morning for some shopping, the vote was undecided. It was too close to call.
I'll reserve my opinion of Cameron until I've read more about him and see what he does in the first few months.
-
When I left home this morning The Conservatives under David Cameron had won the most seats but their total was some 20 seats less than the half plus one necessary to assure the formation of a Government. Today the three main parties no doubt are negotiating for possible coalition arrangements. I'm sure there are many possible combination, Conservative/ Liberal, Conservative/Labor, or even Labor/Liberal. Also members of the smaller parties are involved trying for a Cabinet post of their own.
This situation is a principal weakness of the Parliamentary system. Coalition of this type tends not to last long leading to a new General Election before the expiration of the five year term. Apparently the Liberal Party showing was not as good as the pre election polls indicated.
-
Yes, HAROLD, I can see that's a problem we do not have ordinarily (ahem, do we speak of Bush vs. Gore, in 2000?).
That's a very long article in Wikipedia, MARCIE. I did note one or two items: both Cameron and his wife are extremely wealthy; Cameron has been likened to Tony Blair, in fact, the press wonders if he had a transplant (hahaha), and then the following sentence, which makes one believe that if he wins the election he will have no trouble getting the "nod" from the Queen:
"A feature on Cameron in The Mail on Sunday on 18 March 2007 reported that on the day he was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. The male caller stated, "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."[33] - Wikipedia
We must keep posted on our friends across the pond, as they say.
-
Well, ELLA, that phone call certainly pigued my interest in David Cameron. I'm always interested in what a 'truly remarkable young man' might do. I think we have one of our own
in office now.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
| (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/troublesome/troublesomecv.jpg) |
Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson |
The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.
And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.
The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.
Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.
LINK:
Troublesome Young Men - C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/180764)
JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst
______________________________
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
Reading Schedule
April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
It just occurred to me! Today May 10, 2010 is the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill's becoming P.M. Interesting isn't it that on this anniversary date the Parliament is again involved in choosing a P.M. As I read the news from the morning WSJ they are having considerable trouble reaching a workable coalition agreement. The discussion between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seem hung up on several party sensitive wickets. There appears real possibility of a possible coalition between Labor and Liberals.
-
Harold, there is an interesting article along similar lines at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8c94e0-5c4f-11df-93f6-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss. It will be interesting to see which coalition emerges.
-
"Coalition of this type tends not to last long leading to a new General Election before the expiration of the five year term".
The system works well in Israel, where you would never get a majority to agree on anything. All of their governments have been coilition governments.
-
Well it took 5 days of negotiations to do it, but finally the Brits have a new Government, David Cameron has visited the Queen and he and his family has moved in at #10 Downing street. I wish the new Government good luck and success, but the signs don't seem to favor lonevity.
This discussion of "Troublesome Young Men has been in my view a great success because of the high caliber inputs of the almost 20 people from four different nations who have participated. Thank you everyone!
It is now time to close this board. It will remain open through today with its clousure tomorrow. Any last minutes post today are welcome.