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:

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!

[Wend]

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.
  

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[kiwilady]

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.

[kiwilady]

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.

[Babi]

 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.


 

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

“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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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!  

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Babi]

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!

[Frybabe]

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

[ANNIE]

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. 

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

 

[Ella Gibbons]

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!

[Jonathan]

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.

[serenesheila]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

>"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.

[kiwilady]

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!

[kiwilady]

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.

[Babi]

 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.

 

[Jonathan]

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.

[Jonathan]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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??

[Frybabe]

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.

[JoanK]

"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"!

[Dana]

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??

[Jonathan]

"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.

[Jonathan]

Another great post, Dana.

[Frybabe]

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.  

[Babi]

 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. 

[LynneO]

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.

[Babi]

 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.

[HaroldArnold]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

.

[Frybabe]

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.