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

[HaroldArnold]

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?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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!



 

[kiwilady]

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.

[Babi]

 

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

[HaroldArnold]

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. 

[JoanK]

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.)

[mrssherlock]

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. 

[mrssherlock]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Babi]

 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.”

[LynneO]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

"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!

[Ella Gibbons]

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

[Jonathan]

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.

[joangrimes]

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

[JoanK]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.
  

[marcie]

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.

[Babi]

 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.”

 

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Dana]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[serenesheila]

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

[Babi]

 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

 

[Wend]

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.

[Wend]

 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.

[Wend]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[kiwilady]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

"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?  

[Babi]

  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. 

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.  

[HaroldArnold]

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. 

[Dana]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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/ 

[JoanK]

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.

[Babi]

 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.”