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

[Jonathan]

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]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________



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

Why do you ask, Ella? This book isn't about them. It's about public affairs, alright, but only about how they are conducted at the highest levels. Unless you were schooled at 'Eton and Harrow, Cambridge and Oxford...and lived in Belgravia and Mayfair...'like it's described at the beginning of the book. And these are the ones who left the diaries, memoirs, letters and histories that the author found so helpful in writing her story.

[Ella Gibbons]

Hi, JONATHAN, well, that's the title of the book, and, of course, as you say, the educated elites are the ones who left a legacy, but......

the author does talk about the unawareness of the public; the newspapers who kept the public ignorant because of pressure from the government.

My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their consitutents to talk of the issues.   Hopefully, one of you know?

[Jonathan]

'My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their consitutents to talk of the issues.'

Another good question, Ella.  I'm sure they do. And there must have been informed citizens expecting answers. Then again, one of us had a Churchill quote about him despairing of democracy after talking with the average citizen for five minutes. Now we read of Churchill not even being honest in the House about the true state of affairs. It's Hitler who has blundered in his Norway invasion.

What a sorry business. Isn't it strange to read about the appalling political mess in England, this once mighty, imperial power. Ruled a good part of the earth for several centuries. And now can't get their act together. Can't stop the dictator who in a few short years has pulled his ravaged country together and poses a threat to all the world. With not a few even in England wishing him good luck. Even the one-time king!

Go get him, Winnie. I just found a very good biography of Winston Churchill, by Paul Johnson, published last year. Every Churchill fan will love it. He was always ready for a war. The Norway debacle could be pinned on Chamberlain. As prime minister he couldn't really not take the blame. It seems to me like Amery was hoping he would be picked to replace Chamberlain.

[Jonathan]

And Churchill must have been the only man in England who wanted Edward VIII to stay on the throne. In the end WSC wrote the king's abdication speech. I believe.

[Babi]

I was stunned to read that the undersecretary of the foreign office told the House that “there was no conclusive proof that the Germans were bombing nonmilitary targets in Poland”.  There were eye-witness reports from England’s own ambassador to Poland and the reports of British officers and citizens.  The man flat-out lied.  
  Then the air minister is horrified at the idea of bombing German munitions factories and military installations in the Black Forest.  That was private property!  And the idea of bombing the heavy industry city of Essen was too fantastic for words.  How in heaven’s name did men like these arrive at such key positions?  Oh, well, it was peacetime, right?  Give all the good, plum offices to the  good old chums.  
   May I say I was most relieved to read the post that said Britain has been watchful not to let that happen again, but has maintained a good solid military basis since.  

 

He [Hitler] tended to kick out anyone who disagreed with him anyway,

Dana
 MARCIE, I had much the same reaction to Dana's information. Neither
tolerated criticism and demanded total unquestioning loyalty. Unfortunately,
they both got it from a sufficient number of people to allow them to do
as they wished.

[Ella Gibbons]

My library doesn't have that book, JONATHAN, but there are so many others on Churchill; words such as soldier, stateman, artist, politician, flawed genius, last lion, triumph, tragedy, speeches, wicked wit, etc. beside the titles.

He was many things, but he was for the Empire wasn't he?  No self rule for India and he bloody well wanted the King to keep his throne. Here is the abdication speech, which you think was written by Churchill.

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/King_Edward_VIII/index.htm

Perhaps we are taking a bit of history out of context.  While looking up something about Neville Chamberlain in Google I read this:

In 1936 the Conservative government feared the spread of communism from the Soviet Union to the rest of Europe. Stanley Baldwin, the British prime minister, shared this concern and was fairly sympathetic to the military uprising in Spain against the left-wing Popular Front government.

Leon Blum, the prime minister of the Popular Front government in France, initially agreed to send aircraft and artillery to help the Republican Army in Spain. However, after coming under pressure from Stanley Baldwin and Anthony Eden in Britain, and more right-wing members of his own cabinet, he changed his mind.

Baldwin and Blum now called for all countries in Europe not to intervene in the Spanish Civil War. A Non-Intervention Agreement was drawn-up and was eventually signed by 27 countries including the Soviet Union, Germany and Italy. However, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini openly ignored the agreement and sent a large amount of military aid, including troops, to General Francisco Franco and his Nationalist forces.

When Chamberlain replaced Stanley Baldwin as prime minister he continued the policy of nonintervention. At the end of 1937 he took the controversial decision to send Sir Robert Hodgson to Burgos to be the British government's link with the Nationalist government.

On 13th March 1938 Leon Blum returned to office in France. When he began to argue for an end to the country's nonintervention policy, Chamberlain and the Foreign Office joined with the right-wing press in France and political figures such as Henri-Philippe Petain and Maurice Gamelin to bring him down. On 10th April 1938, Blum was replaced by Edouard Daladier, a politician who agreed not only with Chamberlain's Spanish strategy but his foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm

Chamberlain was old and possibly ill (he died in 1940) and the non-intervention policies of his government had been in effect for a few years.  Could this have been the reason he could not act decisively?

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Ella’s question to Jonathan, “My question is do the politicians of Britain ever go back to their constituents to talk of the issues:”

 I might ask the same question regarding our Congressional Representatives in the U.S.   We are always hearing of adjournments for members of Congress to return to keep in touch with their constituents.  Yet I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing from our guy who is a long time multi term member who succeeded his father who had held the seat for some 30 plus years before him. 

True, I have not ever really wanted involvement with him although late last year I thought it would be interesting to invite him here to the Seniors Apartment complex where I live to address the seniors living here on the effect on their Medicare coverage resulting from the new then Proposed Universal Health Care legislation.  I suspect he would not have touched that invitation with a ten foot pole. 

True also I am sure members of our Congress particularly of the House of Representatives who have only 2 -year terms do keep in touch with their people.  I am also sure it is true in the House of Commons in England where their original 5 year term might end at any time by the call for a new election.  Back a few years ago when I frequently watch Tony Blair’s weekly questions from members, I recall many question were base on a letter the member had received from a constituent.  In both Countries their job longevity requires their staying in touch.

[HaroldArnold]

Comment on the German Invasion of Norway:

British War planners had in the winter 1939-40 considered a possible British-French invasion of Norway as a strategic move against Germany and its supple of Iron ore and other war resources.  Hitler beat them to the punch but the British acted promptly with a Naval and Anglo-French Expeditionary Force.  Despite taking significant losses the British largely won the naval phase of the campaign but the land action after the first month tilted in favor of the German army resulting in a British Naval Evacuation of the allied forces during the first weeks of June 1940.  Click the following for a Wikipedia account of the campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik

I say the British won the Naval phase of the campaign because the Royal Navy sunk more German surface ships (particularly destroyers) than they lost.  This was the first and last time German Surface ships played a major role in a major German Military operation.  Thereafter the role of German Surface ships was limited to single ships dashing into the Atlantic to attack allied conveys such as the 1941 Bismarck/Prince Eugen  dash in the Atlantic to attack conveys, and the Dec 1943 North Cape operation of the Scharnhorst  to attack an allied convey taking aid to Russia that resulted in the its sinking.   Click the following for the Wikipedia account of this interesting Capital Ship Battle in midwinter arctic darkness.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Cape  

[HaroldArnold]

 Much of the apparent mid 1930’s  pro Fascist feeling of British rich and particularly the aristocrats seem to have come from their strong anti communist sentiment inherent from the Communist slaughter of the Russian Royal family and the police state regime  then in power in the USSR.  The Spanish Civil War involved a Republican faction associated with the Trotsky wing of the Communist movement and a nationalist fascist group led by an insurgent General, Francisco Franco.  In the U.S there was considerable sentiment favoring the Republican Communist faction among American liberals.  There was in fact a regiment of American volunteers that fought on the Republican Communist side.  This was the subject of the Hemingway Novel “A Farewell to Arms.”

The Spanish Civil War ended in 1939 as WWII was beginning.  It was expected that Franco would quickly enter the war on the Fascist side in repayment for the aid furnish him in the Civil War by Germany and Italy.  But the wily Franco as Spanish dictator reneged and remained dictator of Spain until his Death in 1975.  He thus became the only fascist dictator in Europe who survived WW II.  He remained in power until his death in Nov 1975.  During his last 6 years he had set up a succession involving the restoration of the old Bourbon monarchy that resulted in the present constitutional Monarchy with the King as chief of state and a parliamentary government after the English pattern.

[Babi]

I didn't realize Chamberlain died in 1940, ELLA. It could very well be
that partly explains his feeble handling of the demands of war. In all good
conscience, though, if he was ill he should have resigned.
    Churchill even praised Chamberlain,  saying “No man is more inflexible, more single-minded. He has a will of steel.”  Well, I would say that is true.  I had to smile, though, when I read that Lady Violet’s reaction was the same as mine.  It was a shame that those qualities were being used for the goals Chamberlain had chosen.  He continues to ignore everyone who disagrees with him, including the British people he is supposed to be serving.  Another grim smile for Dick Law’s observation, “Everything is done to suppress independence of judgment, wherever it may show its hideous head.”

 And of course, HAROLD, thanks to Churchill, the Royal Navy was the only
military branch even close to being on a good war footing the winter of
'30-'40. 
 

[Ella Gibbons]

BABI, why do you think Churchill urged Chamberlain to remain in office? (pg.306)  This was after Chamberlain informed Winston that he was going to resign?  

All very strange, don't you think, in light of what we have been reading and discussing.  None of that went over very big with Chamberlain's opponents

One Tory said bitterly that Chamberlain was clinging to office "like a dirty old piece of chewing gum on the leg of a chair."

Perhaps Churchill was trying to be kind to his old friend and knew that he was failing in health?  And, perhaps, knew that it was the end for Chamberlain?

We don't know, of course.

[Ella Gibbons]

Many in Parliament wanted Lord Halifax, rather than Churchill, as prime minister.   Halifax was immensely wealthy; here are a few brief sentences about him from   -   http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWhalifaxL.htm



"When Neville Chamberlain resigned in May, 1940, the new premier, Winston Churchill kept Lord Halifax as foreign secretary in order to give the impression that the British government was united against Adolf Hitler.

In December, 1940, Lord Halifax was replaced as foreign secretary by his long-term opponent, Anthony Eden. Halifax now became British ambassador to the United States.

Lord Halifax was the British delegate to the San Francisco Conference in March 1945, and attended the first session of the United Nations in 1945. He resigned as ambassador to the United States in May, 1946.

In his retirement Lord Halifax wrote his memoirs, Fulness of Days (1957) where he attempted to defend the policy of appeasement. Edward Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax, died at Garroby Hall, near York, on 23rd December, 1959."


His memoirs would be interesting to read wouldn't they?

[Jonathan]

Churchill, on his way up, could afford to be magnanimous and gracious to a colleague on his way down the ladder of political fortunes. Chamberlain certainlly cuts a sorry figure in the end. The failure of his appeasement policy left him looking both abject and pitiful. How hard he and others tried to stay out of war. Understandable wasn't it? Given the calamity of WWI, with its terrible destruction and loss of life.

What a situation to be in. I have to think of the United States facing the prospect of refighting the Civil War, twenty years after the first.

Churchill provided great leadership as prime minister. Could he have done equally well in that position in the years leading up to the confrontation with Hilter? The well-meaning and weak Chamberlain played into Hitler's hands, who in turn then proved himself the villain whom Churchill was eager to take on.

I've found another book on the subject that looks interesting: THE DUEL, 10 MAY - 31 JULY: THE EIGHTY - DAY STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHURCHILL AND HITLER, by the historian John Lukacs.

And so many memoirs. One that is fun to read, and often quoted by our author,  is OLD MEN FORGET, by Duff Cooper. I've had it on my shelf for years, and finally getting around to reading it.

[Jonathan]

And there's William Shirer's: The Collapse of the Third Republic, An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940. Wasn't that a great read when it came out forty years ago? What we've all lived through, those of us who were young then!!

[Jonathan]

My wife is in the kitchen making us a dinner, with the radio on. And suddenly, loud and clear, I'm listenig to a rousing Battle Hymn of the Republic. Glorious, isn't it?

[Jonathan]

The Marsaillaise is alway very moving, too.

[Wend]

It's really frustrating to watch Chamberlain in action.  He seems to have had only two driving forces: to keep in office by any means, and to have nothing to do with war, however he had to achieve that. 

 PatH Yes- Frustrating struck me as the key word indeed. It was frustrating even though we knew the historical outcome. The entire period of the prolonged refusal to go against Chamberlain was agony.

The masterly work of Leo Amery in swinging the issue despite every thing being thrown at him, including the attitude of Margesson seeking to deny him an audience, was breathtaking. His decision 'to quote or  not to quote' Cromwell gauging the mood of the House as he proceeded struck me as coolness and command of a rare order, and shows him thinking on his feet at such a crucial stage. His quoting of Cromwell was using history in the same manner that Churchill was famous for!.

Amery's use of the Cromwellian quote is brilliant especially in the circumstances:

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing! Depart, I say, and let us have done with you!
In the name of God go!

This was pure poetry and the impact devastated the government: it was all over!

The impact of that quotation was the culmination of Lynne Olson's book

[Babi]

  Chamberlain gave Churchill a chance to do something;  He made Lord of the Admiralty.
Boothby, once Churchill’s PPS,  said “He will take no action to displace the man who at the
twelfth hour gave him his confidence, and got him at the head of a department which absorbs his interests and energies.”  Hopeless as Chamberlain is,  I can understand and respect Churchill’s stand.
  ELLA, while I could respect Churchill’s refusal to attack or undermine
the man who placed him in office,  I  totally could not understand him
standing up in the House and making a strong speech supporting Chamberlain’s
position.  Even less could I understand his urging Chamberlain not to
resign when the man was doing such an abominable job. He did not agree with
Chamberlains policies and had fought for stronger action by the government.
I would love to have some psychologist explain this man to me.
    I see that Hore-Belisha actually tried to make some changes in the army, sacking three top generals and replacing them on the basis of merit, rather than class.  He raised the pay of the regular soldiers and gave them a chance to rise to officer rank.  So of course the ‘gentlemen’ officers persuaded Chamberlain to get rid of the troublemaker.
 
  It was fascinating to read about Amery  emerging as the link that began to draw all the dissidents together.  He has found his place in history. And I agree with WEND; Amery's speech
and the tension-building day that led up to it has to be the high point in this story.

[Ella Gibbons]

"Amery's use of the Cromwellian quote is brilliant especially in the circumstances"

Yes, indeed, WEND, and it put Churchill in the prime minister's seat.  But that's not the end of our story.

Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in his government?  

BABI, we must read a biography of Churchill.  Perhaps that would explain the man to us, if it is possible.

JONATHAN, is the Duff Cooper book very good?

[HaroldArnold]

Ella Regarding Lord Halifax I don’t think he would have made a strong Wartime PM.   He was  too much link to Chamberlain and his appeasement policy.  Initially also he had viewed Hitler and his Nazi government with favor.  He would surely been susceptible to a negotiated Peace that left the U.K Independent to pursue its non-European (Colonial) interests but confirmed Hitler’s control of Continental Europe and free to pursue further expansion eastward in Russia.

Halifax Represented England Well through the war years as the U.K. ambassador to the U.S.  He also played a major role as the U.K. Representative at the San Francisco that created the United Nations.

[HaroldArnold]

Churchill was in his element when he took control of the Admiralty in Sep 1940.  A signal was sent to all units that. “Winnie was back.”  In WW I when he was in the 1st Lord post he on his own had ordered the conversion of all fighting units from coal to oil burning.  This major reconstruction task seems to have been accomplished without the unavailability of ships when they were needed.

During the early days of WWII under Churchill as its 1st Lord, the RN seems to have performed well in keeping German large units out of the North Atlantic.  Churchill immediately]y order the Navy to set up a  convey system for protecting merchant ships from both German Submarines and surface raiders.  Also in the spring of 1940 the RN did well in their effort to keep  German Navy surface ships out of the Conveys in the North Atlantic and in the evacuation of British and French Troops both from Norway and in June from Dunkirk.   In short, Churchill as First Lord was the most vigorous of all the Cabinet officers in his prosecution of the War.

[HaroldArnold]

In 1941 or 42, I remember attending a lecture by William Shirer at the San Antonio Municipal Auditorium. I was in High School and Shier was home on a break from his London reporting Job.  His lecture centered on the reaction of the English people to their wartime life during blitz.  The only real detail I remember was a joke; something about a newly arrived American complaining to an English Friend about the continuing run of wet cloudy, foggy days.  The American concluded his weather diatribe by pointing to one of the barrage balloons scarcely visible in the cloudy sky saying,  “Why don’t they just cut those cables and let this Island sink.”  Was it funny, Well everyone in the audience laughed.  

We read in our book the details of the seemingly endless debate in Commons with the beleaguered Chamberlain holding on to the end.  I had no idea of the details but as I remember it, on May 10, 1940 the morning San Antonio Newspaper carried the news that Germany had invaded Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg and Chamberlain had resigned and Winston Churchill had replaced him as PM.  

[bookad]

what intrigued me after finishing the book... was MacMillan as Prime Minister following the war --all 3 P.M.'s became rather self-centered in their new roles, my way or the highway --Churchill, trying to look after everything, and not letting his war cabinet members any leeway, and MacMillan's bit over the Suez Canal, trying to regain Britain's central position with the canal  ...(almost well here we go again, only this time it was Nigel Nickleson, son of Harold Nickolson who was trying to get the government to see the right from wrongness of their endeavour) --a new group, the next generation of youthful parliament members trying to get the government to see proper ethical prespecive

back to Chamberlain's governing & his war time efforts; I seem to remember there were 2 major sinking of British submarines with loss of hundreds of men, due to ?? lack of air cover with planes?? did Chamberlain take this into consideration in trying to appease Hitler, and  letting British men initial a feeble war effort with lack of support
--men on what seemed like suicide missions not having proper guns, essentials like proper clothing when going to Norway for instance with its harsher climate--I'm wondering how Chamberlain considered these sad resulting situations in his management  of his pseudo-war

its interesting that Churchill, who could be so astute in his managing of certain situations could be naive about the Chamberlain's use of him at the last few moments of Chamberlain's Prime Ministership

on another note--am reading the autobiography of Edward VIII, and both he and his brother's early education was very limited with tutors coming into the castle...and his political education didn't seem to come into being till after he became Prince of Wales, then his daddy took him into his fold and enlightened him; --anyway thats what I took from the book (both he and his brother, Queen Eliz.'s dad, went into the air cadets about age 12, or 13, spending about 6 years there --their initial upbring was very cloistered--so his views of government would be coming from quite a different sphere,
Deb

[bookad]

what a great read this book was, and it was wonderful that Lynne Olson commented on her ideas & research--the book became much richer for all the comments & ideas & links provided by everyone

thank you everyone I really enjoyed being a part of this group
Deb

[bookad]

I can't believe I'm posting again today, but have been looking thru the library room on seniorlearn....there is a post about literature read by the soldiers during the first world war....it caught my interest especially as I remember Macmillan (first world war) I think it was wounded & waiting for help & lying on the battlefield; so he delved into a book he had on him to pass the time....he would put it down & play dead when German's were near by checking their wounded/dead.  ...
I always have a book with me but usually its to read while waiting in the food store; couldn't see myself calm enough to be reading in his situation 

below is reply #196 from last November in the library forum:

I usually don’t read all the ads and junk and stuff that comes in my email, but couldn’t pass up one from Abebooks --  Discover the Reading Lists of World War I

The article talks about how the soldiers craved reading materials when they were statemated in the trenches and tells about their favorites.  Two of those mentioned are books recently talked about at some length here on SeniorLearn – Kipling’s Kim and 39 Steps by John Buchan.

Trench Reading in WWI

And at the bottom of the page is a link  to the story of another soldier reader – this time in Iraq.

[/color]

[bookad]

the link in the above note didn't work for me, but if you go to the reply site page 5 I believe in the library, the link there should take you to this item--I found it very interesting
Deb

[Babi]

HAROLD,  Jean [Mabel]  has a book she thinks you would like, and was looking for you over in
 non-fiction.  I left a note that I would let you know.

   So, I knew that in the beginning America was strongly isolationist and did not want to become involved in the European War.  Perhaps that began to change with the news of  Hitler’s fierce and rapid takeover of so much of Europe.   Still, Olson writes that Chamberlain’s phony war and do-nothing government reinforced that isolationism.  The United States did not want  ‘allies’ like that..

  I cannot imagine how the Chamberlain supporters could hope to blame Churchill for the Norway fiasco.  Though the idea was originally his,  he was not the one responsible to sending soldiers over with inadequate arms,  supplies, air cover or even warm clothing.  He was, in fact, the only one in the cabinet who had been pushing for faster production of  armament and supplies, and better use of the air arm.

   I can see where someone backed by the wealth and status of the Cecil family could be “completely untrammeled by the worldly considerations of the average politician.”  But the Cecils have such a long and fabulous history that I find myself pleased to see they were still strongly influential in British government, father and son.

 

[Ella Gibbons]

DEB, how very good of you to call our attention to the post in the Library; yes I remember reading in our book of MacMillan in the trenches.  Can't we all understand how reading eases the mind when it is troubled?  It does for me and, Deb, like you, I usually have a book in the car or often in my purse. 

I'm sure that families and friends are sending books to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

BABI, speaking of inadequate provisions for the fighting, I am reminded of when our soldiers first went to Iraq and the trucks they were driving were not sufficiently armored for the roadside bombs they were encountering.  It caused such a clamor at home and it was quickly remedied I imagine. 

The public must be informed!  I think had the newspapers, the radio broadcasters, the politicians done their job in Britain some of the ensuing chaos could have been avoided.  But there so many "ifs" in this book as is true of all history.  Perhaps that is why we find it so fascinating. 

I read every so often an article that students are not learning history in schools and universities.  And who was said that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.  I'm not getting that quote correct, but..........

What did all of you think of the last two chapters of the book?  Were you satisfied with the ending?

[Ella Gibbons]

HAROLD, I picked up a copy of Lynne Olson's book THE MURROW BOYS from my library and there is William L. Shirer all through the book.  Pictures included.  One wonders how the Library of Congress files all this information, most of the pictures are from there.

 "What we've all lived through, those of us who were young then!!" - JONATHAN

I remember all the Murrow boys!

[Wend]

Ella

Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in the government

The man who never made a mistake never made anything was a widely used expression and there would be very few who would hold that Churchill had never been wrong in his life and so, in a peculiar, but necessary sort of way he was battle-hardened in real life.

And so in the one corner we had the Tory rebels, a very small number, who Lynne Olson says had never been a tight-knit band of brothers and possibly their flexibility and independence was essential in a fight where they were hopelessly outnumbered.

In the other corner was Chamberlain with a huge majority, standing over a collection of politicians who were under a rigid regime of bullying which the book recognises as being in excess of any esprit de corps automatically discouraging any originality and any potentially worthwhile input.

This very situation had created a safe haven for mediocrity: all they had to do was say yes and the odds were that they had a seat for life in the house in the dominant side. This, in itself is nothing rare: not only is the easy prestigious life one of great attraction to those who are in it, but moreover it also has a very substantial support base within the community.

Lynne Olson also advises that even after the removal of Chamberlain as prime minister, a very experienced old dog for a hard road reminded Churchill that despite his ascension to power he could expect little diminution in the anti-appeasement movement - they would hang around!

The enormity of the change in statutory authority just achieved in the parliament was such that Churchill needed a very careful gradual plan for transition to achieve two things:
1. Rapidly implement those changes requiring a high priority, (and there were plenty of them!).
2. Refrain from implementing massive shifts in authority which could be seen as provocative and constitute grounds for a carefully planned and explosive retaliation to return Chamberlain as prime minister.

With regard to Churchill's magnaminity toward Chamberlain, Lynne Olson records that very few in the House placed any credence in these generous utterances of Churchill and it was noted that no speech of his before or after carried such a lack of impact.

I feel that Churchill was not afraid of Chamberlain, but that he was avoiding any chance that the effort and success of the rebels could be undone.

Implementing rapid changes was the reason for Churchill to work exhausting hours whilst at the same time preventing any retaliation from the Chamberlain camp. His supporters, the Troublesome Young Men, anticipated being appointed to major positions as a reward for getting Churchill into power, however, Churchill left the cabinet virtually unchanged in order to prevent any massive shift in authority which might give rise to an upsurge of feeling against himself. The Rebels were allocated portfolios which they considered to be minor and beneath their dignity.

To the surprise of Boothby, his Ministry of Food portfolio considered a minor job, became incredibly interesting and important once he undertook the task. With his activities in this field he became one of the most popular men in the country. Likewise, Eden also found his role in India far more demanding than he anticipated.

Once his own position was secure Churchill subsequently brought some of the rebels into the major positions.

Churchill's motives in this early period of his Prime Ministership would be the least documented phase of that government because most of it was contained solely in Churchill's head and not committed to paper. Because of the situation Churchill would have had little opportunity or desire to confide in anyone. Despite criticism he carried the burden of having to act and keep straight on, going through the transitions and  toughing it out in the House.

By virtue of the situation there was very little information in the way of records for Lynne Olson as an historian to use. This is evident from the paucity of detailed information about this phase in the book.

[HaroldArnold]

Once Churchill was in power the battlefield situation pretty well defined what was required of the new Government.  It was to avoid immediate all-out defeat in France.  It required that the British expeditionary force fighting there either stop the German advance or at least avoid surrender to be evacuated from the continent to England from where it would be available to fight another day.  This was principally the work of the army, R.N. and R.A.F., not Government Ministers.  True the London Government played a roll certainly in getting the great fleet of small boats together that succeed in brought more than 300,000 British  and French army personnel home to England. But it was the Armed Serves that accomplished this task.

 Later Churchill and his ministers had the task off resupplying these units with the heavy fighting equipment abandoned in France and having these forces ready to repel l a German cross channel invasion expected in the summer or fall of 1940.  I think among the Government ministers in the summer and Fall of 1940, it was Churchill’s speeches that so effectively rallied the British determination to fight and the effect it had worldwide in rallying the Dominions of the British Commonwealth and even the U.S. and other neutrals to the British Cause.

[Jonathan]

'Ella
Quote
Why was Churchill so afraid to give the rebels positions of power in the government?'

Good question from Ella, and good replies from Wend and Harold.

It's amazing how quickly Churchill went into action, providing that leadership that the country so desperately needed. A war to be won; but also a position to maintain at home. In a way Churchill must have felt that he had to fight on two fronts. He needed that majority and the 'confidence' in the Commons more than he needed a few rebels. Rebels would be the last thing he needed. Having been Lord of the Admiralty twice may have given him a dislike of people who rock the boat. People who bring on and fight the revolutions are seldom around when the dust settles.

Churchill was not a party man. He was a power unto himself. Despite feeling unsure of himself at times, even if he didn't let it show. And he could be ruthless, allowing that whip Margesson to determine who got the minor government positions, and to keep the backbenchers in line. The road ahead was rough, but his splendid speeches carried him along.

A quote I can't resist from Wend's post:

'Churchill's motives in this early period of his Prime Ministership would be the least documented phase of that government because most of it was contained solely in Churchill's head and not committed to paper.'

Eventually it was committed to paper, wasn't it? Churchill never did anything without leaving a record. What do the historians think of his accounts of what happened?

[HaroldArnold]

Ops!  I think I've got my news Correspondents mixed up.  It must have been Edward R. Murrow.not William L Shirer who I herd lecture in San Antonio described in message 381.  Apparently it was Murrow who had reported from London during the Blitz.                 

[Ella Gibbons]

Harold, it was probably Murrow you heard.  Shirer, although "over there" during the war, had a soft voice, not a speaking voice; whereas Murrow's voice, of course, was very clear and consequently he did the radio broadcasting.  

Churchill wrote 6 volumes on WWII in his retirement years, in between painting and brick laying.  Wikipedia has a good, concise history of the man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

So, who, among us, will tackle any of those volumes?  I would love to know Churchill's plans for the defense of Britain if Hitler had invaded.

So much of that history is tragic; death and destruction of a large part of the European continent!   I'm attempting a history of Julius Caesar but, it too, is for a large part wars and killing and I'm not sure I will get very far with it.

[Frybabe]

Ella

And who was said that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them.

Edmond Burke wrote "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

George Santayana is the one I see most often as the source. He wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" - The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

I actually thought the saying went way further back than that.

[Ella Gibbons]

No doubt it was just me, I don't know what I expected, but the book ended abuptly I thought, with a bit of history of each of the rebels.  And poor Amery, who had so valiantly helped Churchill to office with no reward except suspicion, had to endure his son's hanging.  

How did the rest of you view the last two chapters?  What did you expect?  Or did you think about it?

[Frybabe]

Since I am way behind in my reading, I cannot comment on the ending. I do want to mention that I have been continually surprised that Churchill did not take a more active/forward role in removing Chamberlain. And then it just blew me away that he actually stood up for Chamberlain and encouraged him to stay. I am going to have to dig up a bio. I really want to know what was going through his mind or how he rationalized his actions or lack thereof. Could his bouts of depression which surely would have caused self doubt and indecision as well as a lack of mental energy have had anything to do with it?

[bookad]

Unbelievable!
I have a copy of 'The Gathering Storm', & 4 other of Winston Churchill's books.  I found them at a garage sale, and bought them, after having picked up 'The Gathering Storm' while the owner of the book, was out fishing while at a friend's cottage two summers ago.  Never quite got around to even lifting up the book till now.

excerpt from inside cover of The Gathering Storm:

    

'No great statesman of our time has had such a command of the English language as Winston S. Churchill.  Few have had such a grasp of history or played so large a part in making it.  Throughout his career Churchill preserved every scrap of significant material for the books he knew he would eventually write.  Every order he issued every memorandum or personal telegram, was immediately set up in type, printed and filed.  "I doubt," he says, "whether any similar record exists or has ever existed."

     It is of no wonder that when it was announced that he would write the history of the Second World War there arose throughout the world an interest and excitement caused by no other publication of this century.  The six volumes of The Second World War, of which The Gathering Storm is the first, fulfilled the highest expectations with which they were awaited.  In 1953 Churchill wass awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

     The Gathering Storm covers the period from the Treaty of Versailles to Churchill's appointment as Prime Minister in 1940.  Its theme is "How the , speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."    The book is divided in two parts, the first of which, dealing with the period 1919-1939, sets forth the mistakes of the Allies after World War I, the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, the war in Spain the rape of Austria, the tragedy of Munich and its aftermath.  The second part takes up the "twilight war of 1939 and 1940, from Germany's attack on Poland, through the invasion of Denmark and the battle for Norway, to the climatic and terrible moment just before Dunkirk when Hitler seemed on the threshold of victory.  Then Churchill at last became Prime Minister.  All his life, he felt, had been a preparation for this hour.  

    

------
I found it interesting the reviewer allowed the British people to assume a part of the blame for their failure to partake in the war...not quite what I got our of the book we just finished I think.

Now I've copied the above my interest is up and I think I'll be reading this book...nice to see his slant on events!

[serenesheila]

HAROLD, you have peaked my interest.  Please tell me the title of the book you are reading aboyt Edward VIII.

I felt the book ended abruptly.  I was disappointed.  But, overall, this is one of the best books I have ever read!   There is a mini series broadcast on the military channel called:  "The First World War".  I find it fascinating, and am watching it for the 3rd time.  There is another mini series called:  "World At War".  It begins with 1939, and continues through 1945.

The series"The First World War", is based upon a book.  It is well worth reading.

Sheila

[Wend]

Lynne Olson also advises that even after the removal of Chamberlain as prime minister, a very experienced old dog for a hard road reminded Churchill that despite his ascension to power he could expect little diminution in the anti-appeasement movement - they would hang around!

Oops! I see I made a typo in the above statement - anti-appeasement should read  pro-appeasement. Such a difference of meaning...sorry about that!