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

[Dana]

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:

How did the newspaper accounts of British blunders play in America?

Do you think the age of Chamberlain was a factor in his indecisiveness?

What did you think of the parliamentary procedures in renouncing a prime minister?

What were  the tactics for “getting rid of the government“?

Do you know of other prime ministers that have been ousted from the British parliament and what tactics were used?

Did you find the way of “voting” a better way than a ballot?  

If you had been Chamberlain’s friend, could you have walked down the “no” corridor?

Were you surprised by  Churchill’s speech in defense of Chamberlain?  

Why was Churchill so hesitant  in taking on the job of Prime Minister?

Could he have taken a more active role earlier and made a difference in the war?[/b]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________




I've been thinking about the German invasion of Poland and the Chamberlain government's refusal to do anything concrete about sending help.  But I'm wondering if the state of unpreparedness of the armed forces was so bad that it was just as well they didn't.  For example, if  planes had been lost would the Luftwaffe have been able to wipe out the RAF the following summer?  They almost did as it was.  Only because Goring backed off prematurely did that go in our favour.  I would think that if the Brits had started, say, bombing the Ruhr, the Germans would have started attacking the UK earlier, and we certainly wouldn't have been ready.

In the Hitler book I was reading about how Hitler had a planned policy of complete barbarity towards the Poles (and later the Russians).  My father was a Polish army officer and I remember we had a book in our bookcase at home when I was a child, "The German New Order in Poland"  with photos of hangings and descriptions of killings.  Hitler was obsessed with "annihilating" people.  One of his favourite words seems to have been "vernichten."...annihilate......Poles, Jews, insane, gypsies, even their own wounded soldiers (I don't know if that actually happened or if he just talked about it)....he never visited a single hospital or bereaved family....mind you, neither did Stalin.  Perhaps that is why they could kill so many, they detached themselves from the reality of it, they were detached to begin with, but they made sure they never did anything to un-detach themselves.  I don't know about Churchill.
.

[HaroldArnold]

Dana I don't recall any photos of Churchill visiting hospitals, but that that doesn't mean he never did.  I do recall many photos of the King an Queen visiting hospitals and other sites of civilian bomb destruction.  This was and is one of the principal duties  of the Royal family

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Ella's question. Are you familiar with the Maginot Line, France’s defense in case of war?

 Indeed there was much pre-WWII news concerning the French Defense Installation constructed after the WWI armistice along the French border with Germany.  It was widely held to be unbreachable by any German invading force.   As it happened there was no reason for the Germans to attack through the Maginot fortification.  They just did what they did in WWI, the attacked France through Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg where there was no Maginot line to breach.   This area was defended by the British Expeditionary force as well as French units.  These British and French units immediately moved to defend these countries but the mobile German panzer units quickly overwhelmed them triggering the historic retreat to the French Channel port of Dunkirk and the eventual evacuation of some 300,000 British and French army personnel.  

How could the French in light of the WWI attack through Belgium have neglected to fortify their entire boarder?  How could they have felt secure against a German invasion with so much of their border undefended?    

  

[serenesheila]

Ella, please put me down for Lynne Olson"s newest book, "Citizens of London".  It deals with three American men, Edward R. Murrow, Averall Harriman, and the American Ambassador to England, John Gilbert Winant.  I am not interested in a book about Stalin.

Sheila

[Dana]

I wonder if Churchill did visit hospitals?  Probably.
 Of-course the royal family did.  That's really part of the job description. ( as you said, Harold) But none of them had to decide to send young men/women to die/be maimed.

[bookad]

hi there
we've arrived home finally, no luck with getting internet of any duration on the way home--lovely welcome snow on Saturday, but the daffodils are up here and buds are out on some trees, trillium are starting to show!  ...good to be home...we live in Price's Corners 5 minutes to Orillia, home of Stephen Leacock, you're right Jonathan

I have been catching up on the posts, but thought I'd put my 2cents worth in now....it is an amazing read with much 'food for thought'

that Chamberlain could, with his party whips, coerce his party and the newspapers such that the English people were really unaware of the peril just across the English channel.... were the party members 'the old boy's group' drawn so close that they didn't think for themselves!!

Churchill was an amazing man with how he handled his time in office as Prime Minister, pulling his nation to work together against Germany & Hitler...yet he was so loyal to Chamberlain with his desire to be a member of his cabinet; he didn't really appear to me to be a part of the 'appeasers'... ....at the beginning of the book I felt certain he would be part of this group till he became the Prime Minister

this book reads like a good mystery, ...at times I almost lost myself in this ...I'm sure that a lot of this is the reading of the posts & keeping up with the varying ideas & points of interest

Deb

[Babi]

 DANA, I think there is no doubt that England should have been placed on
a strong military basis much earlier. The pre-WWII muddle was almost
inevitable without that. But so soon after the horrors of WWI, I can so
easily understand why people wanted to put all that behind them and could not bear to think of anything but peace.

 I found this photo of the evacuation of some children. It was a pang to read that the parents sent their children off not knowing where they were going or how to get in touch with them.

  http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/war/evacuation.htm

 

[PatH]

Bookad, I agree with you that the book reads like a good mystery.  I'm still not quite caught up, but that's just how I read it on the way home, even though of course I knew in general what was going to happen.

[ANNIE]

While I am reading the book, I am getting impatient with how long it takes the Parliament to make decisions and Chamberlain's total unawareness of the mess he has the country in.  What was he thinking?  My impatience comes from living in our now fast technologist world of today, I am sure.
Wasn't that a sad time for those children being evacuated from their parents and homes?  Remember when we read about the island, Guernsey?  That happened there also.  It was well portrayed in the movie.  Made one feel so sad for those children. 
Remember that "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" started that way???

[HaroldArnold]

Comments On Post WW II U.S. and U.K. Preparedness and Current U.K. Economic Strength

Regarding the recent comment on the lack of U.K military preparedness in 1939 the lesson seems to have been rather well learned.  True both the U.K. and U.S. immediately rapidly demobilized at the end of WW II, but not to the extent of WW I.  Also the rapid development of the Cold War quickly made preparedness a key U.S. and Western European priority.  Even the economically ill U.K. and other west European countries participated with the cold war NATO organization coming into being in the early 1950’s.  

Regarding the military position of the U.K. today it seems inclined to keep its military modern and sufficient to maintain a prominent position in the NATO origination.  Though its worldwide Empire is gone It has been a significant participant in recent anti terrorists operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  Even though the U.K. today, has not recovered from the recent (2008-09) world economic crisis as rapidly as the U.S., it too has had significant improvements to date with at least favorable prospects for the future.  Also the U.K.’S historic leadership in World finance and Banking has survived, assuring it at least a prominent position in today’s World economics councils.

[HaroldArnold]

Further Comment on Parliamentary Government:

Actually the Parliamentary system is capable of very rapid policy change.  A single vote of the Parliament can immediately replace a Government.   Perhaps that’s why the whip system was instituted to avoid quick frivolous spur of the moment changes.   I agree in 1937 -39 it certainly succeeded in keeping a government in power despite the obvious weakness of its position.

In Contrast in the U.S. we must wait until the next general election to change a government.  That might be as long as four years.   Also in the U.S. Congress we too have essentially the same whip system equally active in keeping their individual members in line with the party platform.

[marcie]

Thank you, Lynne, for your helpful responses to our questions. You've made this time come alive with your detailed research. I also appreciate all of the participant's research and comments from your own recollections. I was struck by how much England's people suffered due to the sending away of their children, the blackouts, rationing, lack of information, etc.... all that, while their country wasn't actually making any headway in the war.  The one comment from an official who scolded a pilot for dropping still-bundled pamphlets over Germany spoke of the government's denial of the fact that they had declared war: "Good God. You might have killed someone!" It is painful to read how most of Chamberlain's men were deluding themselves with wishful thinking and how most officials seemed to be stuck in the mode of "it isn't cricket" to speak against the government or even speak against the "enemy", although a few of Chamberlain's men thought it was quite all right to spy on their critics in their own government.

[mrssherlock]

Library called my book back.  I'll catch up when I can check it out again.

[Ella Gibbons]

It's a Wednesday and at noon our city tests its tornado warning system, a long blasting sound, something perhaps similar to an air raid signal?  I don't know.

How frightening that must have been.

"The misery was made even worse by the blackout, the most detested disruption of the war, which in the words of one historian, 'transformed conditions of life more thoroughly than any other single feature of the conflict.  During the phone war period it was far more dangerous to walk the streets of London at night than to be at the front in France."

Total blackness!  I experienced that once years ago while on a cave expedition.  We spent the night and it was very scary; we couldn't tell the floor from the wall from the ceiling.   I slept very little as we were interrupting the bats and later we heard humans were not allowed to do that anymore. 

Were there air raid shelters in WWI?

Thanks, HAROLD, for your informative, as always, posts on England's strengths, current and historical.  And, yes, I've always wondered about the Maginot Line; that just seems so ridiculous that France believed in it!  After WWI particularly!

ANN, you are so right about technology today; our impatience, we live in a fast world.  I often wish it were not so, but then we would not be gathered here to discuss Britain, Chamberlain, and WWII.

PATH:  We are waiting for you to catch up and post your opinions!  You are always so astute!

And, BOOKAD, we are happy you got home safely with spring awaiting!  Isn't it wonderful!  Thanks for your post.  Can you imagine sending children off not knowing why and the misery of doing nothing!  And not being told by your government or the media what was going on? 

And the Ministry of Information!  (pgs.251-252)  Some of that is hilarious!

BABI, thanks for that site, that photo of the little boy is precious with his knee socks and his little case.  How dreadful for parents and the children to be so disrupted of family life!

[Ella Gibbons]

The Maginot Line - remarkable!  

"Crucially, the Line was more than simple geography and concrete: it had been designed with the latest in technological and engineering know-how. The larger forts were over six storeys deep, vast underground complexes that included hospitals, trains and long air-conditioned galleries. Soldiers could live and sleep underground, while internal machine gun posts and traps repelled any intruders. The Maginot Line was certainly an advanced defensive position - it is believed that some areas could withstand an Atom Bomb - and the forts became a marvel of their age, as kings, presidents and other dignitaries visited these futuristic subterranean dwellings."

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa072001a.htm

[Ella Gibbons]

SHEILA!  I will remember to recommend Olson's book, THE CITIZENS OF LONDON.  Sometime ago, I read a biography of Pamela Harrison - wife of Averill,  I think it was her 3rd, 4th marriage, each one more spectacular, and finally, with Harriman's money pledged to the Democratic party she was given the post of Ambassador to France and while swimming in Paris she died.  What I remember about the book is the fantastic wealth of Harriman!

[HaroldArnold]

In Message #318 Ella asked:
Do any of you remember John Maynard Keynes (message 238) that the group consulted?   I think his philosophy became known as the Keynesian theory of economics and was vigorously practiced by governments for years?

Keynesian Theory gives the Government a major role in the management of the national economy.  The Keynesian prescription for saving capitalism was that times of severe economic distress required active Government intervention.  The Government was to intervene to create new jobs, provide relief programs for the unemployed and aid business who avoiding layoffs or for business expansion to create new jobs.  In such a crisis the government should lower taxes to the extent of running huge deficits to cover the cost of the recovery operations.   In Good economic times Keynesian theory continued The role of Government should reverse.  It should drop all the then unnecessary make work measures and let the economy function more or less on its own as it should under the capitalist model.  The Government should not only avoid any continuance of deficit financing, it should raise taxes to the extent necessary to pay back the deficits incurred during the crisis.

I think the U.S. has been more prone to follow Keynesian economic program than the U.K.  The Roosevelt new deal, and the George Bush/ early Obama response to the 2008 crisis certainly had Keynesian earmarks.  I suspect that the current Labor government in the U.K.  too probably followed the Keynesian model, but the program of the post WW II Labor government by their Nationalization of Utilities and major heavy Industries  rejected Keynes for the socialism of Marx.   T

The Principal problem with Keynesian economic theory in the U.S. is that Governments seem to do the right thing during the time of distress but they fail to follow through when good times return.  In other words instead of letting the restored economy  function on its own they tend to create new spending programs and are reluctant to increase taxes to pay off the debt incurred during the years of deficit.  The result is continuing increasing deficits and rising inflation.  Perhaps what this world needs is a new Economic theorist who would derive a practical theory for a steady state economy that will avoid both the dizzily high peaks and gruesome lows that have plagued our past economic lives.  

[PatH]

Yes, governments have trouble letting go of spending, and politicians facing elections don't want to raise taxes.

[PatH]

The extent of control over the press in England at this time is amazing.  The Government, the politicians, and the newspaper owners almost completely controlled what information was given to the public; as a result, the average man had no notion of how serious the international situation was.

I wonder how controlled the American press was at this time?  Obviously much less than the English, since the American journalists were appalled at English censorship, but I bet it was more controlled than now.

[serenesheila]

This book is sooooooooo interesting!  I do not want to put it down.  Thank you, Lynne, for all of your research, and your style of writing.

I feel so sad, for both the parents and children, who were separated in England.  As a child, I would have been terrified.  As a parent, my mind would have been constantly on my missing children. 

One of the things that I have been thinking about as I read, is how fortunate it was that Mtrs. Simpson entered the life of the Prince of Wales.  He was so pro Hitler, and Germany, I have been thinking about how different England, and the world would be, if he had not fallen in love with her.  From something I read in this book, the British upper class were very commited to the class system.  How sad, for the children from the East End, being thrust iinto into such a different way of life.  What a shock it must have been for all of the Lords and Ladies.

I remember Black Outs.  We lived on the coast of Southern California.  It was frightening.  Everyone had to paint the lights on their cars, so that they could not be seen from the air.  Our windows had to be blacked out.  All along the beach were gun emplacements.  We did have air raids, too.  However, I do not remember ever going to a shelter.  We just stayed home, at night.  I also remember having to duck under my desk, as a school child.

Sheila

[serenesheila]

PatH, I share your views about the English press.  I, too, wonder how much American publishing takes it's orders from the government.  For that matter, how about radio and television?  I think the new technology helps us get more of the news, although not all of it is truth.

Sheila

[Babi]

ELLA, thanks for that information about the Maginot Line. Since I've
heard so much about the 'trenches', I had a mental picture of miles of
trenches as the Maginot Line. It makes much more sense to know that there
were forts and underground complexes.

   I was intrigued and amused by the wide range of things moved to safety from London, from the Coronation Chair and the paintings in the National Gallery, to a collection of cricket memorabilia.  Do you think we would do the same for our baseball 'Hall of Fame'?

 

[Frybabe]

I can just see it now - Archie Bunker's chair being spirited away for safe keeping.

[Wend]

On August 23, 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non aggression pact which stunned Great Britain

Hitler with his fascism and Stalin with his communism were always undeclared ememies. The non aggression pact was a sham on both sides and was an attempt by each to lull the other into a false sense of security to increase the impact when the pact was broken without warning.

One can only surmise that Hitler and Stalin felt that the creation of an apparent power bloc might induce Britain to capitulate without firing a shot especially in view of how reticent the British government was to upset Germany on its own.

When Hitler did attack Russia it was surprising in view of his 1930s intensity, refinement and production of high speed mechanised transportation that conveying German guns etc into Russia included the use of 250,000 horses.

[HaroldArnold]

Comment on the English press suppression of news relative to the positions of the Troublesome Young Men group:
 
I think we should note that there was no formal governmental agency censoring of the English Press during this period.  Though it is true that the principal mass circulation newspapers failed to print stories revealing the emerging dangers of Nazism or otherwise giving press support to the position of of the Troublesome Young Men, It was not because of censorship law but rather more a sign of respect for the national Government leaders.

I think U.S. newspaper too at times have shown a tendency to favor high leadership particularly a leadership enjoying a high level of popular support.  In the 1960’s the mainstream press seem to have ignored reporting Whitehouse events of a spectacular social sort more likely to emerge from Hollywood than the Whitehouse.  In both the U.S. and England since the 18th century there have been many small newspapers and Journals free and eager to publish anything including dissenting opinions of all sorts.  .  I suspect in the pre-WW II period there were other publications supporting many minority views including the activities of the Troublesome Young Men,

(Note a good example of the small press coverage in Regency England is the Prince Regent’s 1819 divorce case in the House of Lords that was fully covered by the popular press.  The Prince lost.)

[Ella Gibbons]

HAROLD, such a good post!  What do you think of the VAT being proposed to pay off the government debt?  This is not the proper place to discuss economics, in a way, but I think Britain has that tax now do they not?

SHEILA, that's interesting about the abdication crisis of the King at this time.  It's true he was pro-Hitler but would he have been persuaded otherwise in time?  The crisis just about ruined Churchill's leadership possibilities, sent him into the wilderness to write (see pg.82) and brought Neville Chamberlain to power.  So much history in so little time.

You remember blackouts?  Fascinating.  I lived in the midwest and was in high school and we had no such occurrences.

THANKS, PATH, BABI AND FRYBABE FOR YOUR POSTS.  THANKS TO ALL OF YOU - AND -

WE HAVE JUST TODAY TO FINISH THIS PORTION OF THE BOOK.

TOMORROW WE GO TO THE LAST CHAPTERS; Chapter 16 to the end of the book.  And it does read like a mystery!

[Ella Gibbons]

And so, we have to ask, WHAT WOKE UP GREAT BRITAIN TO THE PERIL THAT WAS FACING THEM?

We can learn from these lessons of history.

[PatH]

Indeed, there was no official censoring of the press pre-WWII.  But there didn't have to be.  The newspapers, or their owners, seemed to have bent over backward to oblige.

A different sort of information withholding: the German publishers of Mein Kampf would only give permission for publication of a very condensed English translation, with the worst parts left out.  When Kitty Atholl read itin German, she gave a copy to Churchill, insisting he read it.  They both found it appalling for it's specific blueprint of Hitler's intentions.  I've read that elsewhere; that between the raving, the book says pretty exactly what Hitler meant to do, and almost succeeded in.

Has anyone read enough of Mein Kampf to comment on this?

[PatH]

When Bob and I were living in Strasbourg in 1968-9, bits of the Maginot Line were up for sale to the general public--said to have a good view of the Rhein through rather narrow windows, and to be damp with insect problems.  I'm sorry we never looked at one.

[HaroldArnold]

I have never read Mein Kampf so I.m not going to comment except to say I have never doubted that it outlines the Hitler plan in its full gruesome details.
Regarding the VAT (Value added Tax) mentioned by Ella, Click the following Wikipedia article on it. I'll add further comment tomorrow.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#Without_any_tax     

[Jonathan]

So many interesting topics are coming up in this discussion. But then we are dealing with momentous events. Lynne's book, she tells us, was meant to be the story of Churchill's coming to power, and she has made it interesting. What a lot of dramatic detail along the way.

250,000 horses used in Hitlers eastern campaign! That's a lot of cavalry. Was he expecting to meet and fight those fierce Cossacks on their terms? I seem to remember that some horses were used to pull the the mechanized equipment out of the mud on the steppes.

Was Stalin taken in by Hitler like Chamberlain was? Did he really believe he had cut a deal with Hitler? Stalin certainly got a lot more than Chamberlain. A chunk of Poland and the Baltic states, and a free hand in Finland, as well as someting in the Balkans. All Chamberlain got was a promise of peace. At home there was all that acclamation at first. How quickly it became apparent that the country was without effective leadership. Lynne describes it so well. And then in Chapter 15, Churchill makes it obvious that he is ready and willing to lead, while still remaining loyal to the prime minister, and leaving it to the young rebels to win it for him in the House.

The press does play a role in it. I wonder if at times the press lords felt that they were 'controlling' the government. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a man like Lord Beaverbrook, with his three dailies, was considered a king maker. He was very close to Churchill during the war.

[Babi]

 FRYBABE: 

 WEND, what really astonished me was that after declaring war on Germany,
the Chamberlain government was still making every effort not to annoy
or antagonize the Germans! It's crazy! But then, it was only a sham war
at that point, wasn't it?

 People do have a way of refusing to believe what they don't want to
believe, don't they, PatH?  I recall during the early day of the Communist
threat, arguing this point.  I once commented, "If someone says he's
going to kick you, and then he does kick you, how can you say he doesn't
really mean it?"

[Ella Gibbons]

The Maginot Line, the Berlin Wall, torn down and sold for souvenirs.  Border walls.  We have a border problem of our own here in the USA at the moment.  It will be interesting to see how it is solved, won't it? Haven't they tried a wall? 

I've never read Mein Kampf, PATH, but we know Hitler meant every word didn't he?  What did the man want?  More land, yes, but how much and at what sacrifice?  The man was insane as you said, BABI. If I remember correctly, his generals of the army were opposed to his ideas, but were under his power. 

WEND said Hitler and Stalin had always been undeclared enemies, but then for Hitler to attack Russia, the giant!  Two giants at war. 

1940 and the British public, the WATCHING COMMITTEE, Chamberlain, Churchill.

"I feel I ought to let you know that I am very deeply concerned about the way the war is going.  It is not less deadly because it is silent....Can we suppose the Germans have not been thinking about what to do?  Surely they have a plan.  We have none.  There is no sort of action in view except to wait on events." - Churchill

They need a big issue.  A spark.  And Churchill provided it. 

Let's continue on with Chapter 16, okay?  Back later, appointments all day.

[marcie]

And so, we have to ask, WHAT WOKE UP GREAT BRITAIN TO THE PERIL THAT WAS FACING THEM?

We can learn from these lessons of history.

Ella, it seems to me from reading the book so far, that Great Britain woke up very slowly. There were a handful of men and women who went against the grain of their society and, from the beginning, saw the dangers of Hitler and Germany. But even some of these lacked the courage of their convictions and didn't want to rock the boat too much. Chamberlain and his "insiders" squelched any opposition. It would take the act of ousting Chamberlain to wake up the government and the nation. As you indicate, they needed a big issue that would bring everyone together. A leading Tory MP, Sir Stafford Cripps, said "Th only way [the government] can be ousted is on a big issue, with the whole nation aroused." The big issue turned out to be the failure of British forces in Norway. But I think that this issue invited the opportunity to overthrow Chamberlain because of everything that had led up to it, and Chamberlain's feeble response to it. It seems to me it was just the last straw that put Chamberlain's policies and actions into focus. Even then, it was primarily because of the personal courage and understanding of history and government,  possessed by Leo Amery that people were finally able to see that Chamberlain was not able to lead Britain in war. Thanks, to Lynne Olson's effective writing, I got chills when Leo Amery quoted Cromwell's words to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to lead the nation (p .294 in my hardback copy).  Then it took the courage of the members of the House who called for a vote of confidence and then voted their convictions, despite the likelihood that it would ruin their careers if Chamberlain was not defeated.

[HaroldArnold]

Jonathan, I think some horses were also used on the Western Front by not only the Germans but also by the allies during the winter of 1944-45, but nowhere near on the scale of their use in Russia where the lack of improved roads coupled with extremely bad weather them a necessity.

Babi Historians refer to the War as it progressed from its outbreak, Sep 3, 1939 through May 10, 1940 when Hitler launched his invasion of Holland, Belgium and France as the "Phony War"

And Marcie: "There were a handful of men and women who went against the grain of their society and, from the beginning, saw the dangers of Hitler and Germany. But even some of these lacked the courage of their convictions and didn't want to rock the boat too much."

Your last sentence here quoted from your post #353 certainly describes Anthony Eden.  He honestly knew how to describe himself when he said he lacked Spunk in that early prewar speech.

[Dana]

Hitler believed that "Jewish Bolshevism" had to be eradicated so that Germany could expand and the requisite amount of living space could be available for the Aryan race. His pact with the Russians was simply expedient for him at the time so that the Russians would not intervene in his early expansion plans, but he always intended to take on Russia at some point.  He did it earlier than he intended, when he decided not to invade Britain, because he thought that when he defeated Russia (which he thought he would do easily) Britain would capitulate.
It is interesting that his generals, who had expressed doubts about all his previous invasion plans, all of which had been successful, did not express doubts about invading Russia.  He tended to kick out anyone who disagreed with him anyway, and developed contempt for his generals because he had been right and they had been wrong  judged by his early successes.  He took over command of the army during the  first year of the Russia conflict making him the only head of state to be responsible for strategy and tactics--even Stalin backed off intervening in tactics.

[marcie]

Dana, it's interesting that the leaders of both Britain (Chamberlain) and Germany (Hitler) at the time both didn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them. I wonder to what extent all political leaders are like that.

[PatH]

It's really frustrating to watch Chamberlain in action.  He seems to have had only two driving forces: to keep in office by any means, and to have nothing to do with war, however he had to achieve that.  These are coupled with considerable naivete in dealing with unscrupulous politicians and a lack of feel for military strategy or tactical problems.

So he lets Hitler string him along, believing H. won't really do much, and doing nothing to build up military power.  He only agrees to help Poland if it’s invaded when forced to by public opinion, and he only finally declares war when all Parliament, including his own supporters, is totally outraged by the delay and might actually oust him.

He still doesn’t really mean it, though.  He dawdles about, dropping propaganda leaflets.  He doesn’t want to bomb strategic targets because he might "irritate" Germany.  He’s declared war against the country, but Heaven forfend he should "irritate" them!  It’s frustrating to read about, it must have been agonizing to live through.

[Dana]

Yeh Marcie--look at Stalin....He didn't tolerate dissent either!
Pat I think the book suggests later that Chamberlain quite likely delayed fighting because the Brits needed time to biuld up their practically non existant forces--if this book doesn't say that, then I definitely read it someplace else

[Ella Gibbons]

MARCIE, what a good post, thanks for that.  Does it strike anyone else that it was only the "upper class;" those that possibly had the time and money to organize committees, have dinner at the Carleton or other expensive places that eventually made a difference?  Did the politicians ever go back to their constitutencies to talk to the people who had 8-5 jobs, who labored for their families and who sent their sons to the front to possibly be killed?  

Where are the ordinary people, the public, in this history?

DANA, I think you are the one who read the book about Hitler?  You state that Hitler intended to take on Russia at some point; why?  Was there another reason besides the belief that Britain would capitulate?

PATH, yes, "agonizing to live through;" isn't it amazing that Britain, with its allies, won the war.  We know they did but at this point it seems unlikely, doesn't it; when Hitler has the European continent in his sights.

I've put just a few questions for your consideration in the heading.  

I am left with many questions after rereading Chapters 16 and 17.  Lynne has done a wonderful job of teaching us how to change prime ministers, but is this the way the British vote on all issues?