Troublesome Young Men ~ by Lynne Olson ~ April Book Club Online

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

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

JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst

______________________________

Discussion Leaders:  Ella and Harold

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?"  

[bookad]

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

[Ella Gibbons]

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?    

[Babi]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[mrssherlock]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[bookad]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.

        

[PatH]

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.

[kiwilady]

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

[kiwilady]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[kidsal]

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]

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]

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.

[Babi]

 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.

[PatH]

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".

[mrssherlock]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.  

[Frybabe]

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).

[mrssherlock]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Jonathan]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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?

[PatH]

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.

[kiwilady]

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)

[Jonathan]

Was it Henry V at Agincourt?

[Jonathan]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[Jonathan]

Of course, Pat. But I just had to get my hero in there.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[PatH]

Certainly, Jonathan.  Can't forget St Crispian's day and our valiant English longbowmen.

[JoanK]

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.

[Babi]

 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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.