Churchill's 'History Of The Second World War'. Why It Still Matters. Part 1.

But if we look at all biographical...type....works, then Bradley and hosts of others should be disected page by page too surely. In similar vein.

 

If you don't mind me asking, how do the British today view some of Churchill's rivals leading up to and during his first Primership? Men such as Chamberlain, Baldwin, Halifax, and later on, Attlee? Against such a die hard fighter and enourmously popular wartime leader like Churchill, how do the history books treat the other figures in the government who were not as, should I say, "gung ho".

 

Read pieces of it, I have incomplete edition (in French !!!), nice read, but lack of any mention of ULTRA makes you wonder what else was left out. Still he WAS a makor player, and a critical one at times so ... been planning for a long time to get an full English edition and read it cover to cover but somehow always find somerthing more interesting to do.

 

No two historians ever seem to agree and I was hoping that someone would answer your question but no-one has here is my answer after consulting my father.

Baldwin was the nearest politician to Harold Wilson (my father's view - would mean something to Britons on my age) - devious, unprincipled, a consummate politician and a very good talker. Thought little of the Country, was was primarily concerned with his own Party and getting himself into power. I know that Churchill detested him and thought that Baldwin was more responsible for Appeasement than Chamberlain. Haven't read enough to give you much more but I think he is being slightly rehabilitated. Although he won the 1932 election on a pacifist ticket, having won he did start re-armament of the RAF and was responsible for installing the Guns at Singapore. I think he claimed that his was the art of the possible. With such a strong tide against War, he could do anything else but go along with the public mood. Nevertheless, he just seemed to keep things quiet and I did see that at one point he was hoping the Germans could be deflected to take on Stalin.

I believe Chamberlain's image has improved mainly because of the support he gave Churchill when part of the five man War Cabinet along with Halifax, Attlee and Greenwood (deputy of Labour Party) from 10 May 1940. It is only now recognised that Churchill's position was far from secure and there was a possibility that despite the rhetoric, his Government might have had to sue for Peace after Dunkirk.

The only good thing to say about Halifax is that he recognised he would not make a good War Leader (May 1940) and turned down the opportunity. Given the Conservative majority, it is almost certain he would have won a vote in Parliament in preference to Churchill. Even as a member of the War Cabinet he was still strongly in favour of negotiating a Peace with Hitler.

Atlee and the Labour Party come out of it very well - Churchill could not have come to power or remained in power without their support. Particularly impressive, since the Labour Party had a bad start. My father is still bitter that Labour in the 1930s was very pacifist and wanted to ban the "Bomber".

On the question of Churchill, my father unquestionably believes that "Churchill alone saved us". By contrast, my Grandfather (WW1 vet) always detested Churchill for breaking the 1926 strike.

 

churchill was and is an evocative character. In fact we have discussed Halifax many times of this forum.
Your grandads view is acceptable. Best work I've seen on Churchill is Roy Jenkins's work. For any faults Churchill had and even for my own detesting of his handling of some issues before 1939...He has earned the right to his sainthood for a few days in May 1940 when all was at stake.

 

in fact for all my love of history I only recently visited his grave. Nothing austere, no flags banners or bugles meeting you at the gates...A small churchyard off a busy road, through a few small lanes. And there he is in the family plot. His relatives surrounding him. And the best thing....? A small primary school just over the fence 5 yards away if that. Kids playing in the playground. British iife, unasuming, unpretensious. crys of kids playing and possibly the greatest Briton ever born, laying not in state..Not in religious or political fineary....but there...just there....And the traffic passes by unknowingly with no signs, no pointers down the lane to the main road...Nothing except a pub down the road that our Yank cousins may recognise and smile about.

 

But none quite illiterate enough....

To be fair, most Britons' opinions on Baldwin - if they have one at all, that is! - is distinctly coloured by his machinations in the Abdication Crisis!

He was particularly vital fior keeping the Conservative Party in line behind Winston; after all, it had been said party getting bent all out of shape that had doomed his own leadership, so he knew all the pitfalls!

There are a lot worse things could be said about Halifax....

Not only did he remain "strongly in favour" of negotiating a peace with Hitler - he did so despite the War Cabinet's decision not to pursue Mussolini's mediation offer in the middle of the Dunkirk evacuation...and via Lord Lothian in the States was still making approaches to the Germans via Wahsington social circles in mid-July 1940! Winston had to order him to order Lothian to break off contact....and in a calculated snub Winston ALSO ordered Lothian direct I.E. openly hinting that he didn't trust halifax to do as he was told or what had been group-decided in this matter.

There is also a hint that he was peripherally involved in - at the very least definitely knew of - Ralph Edwards' strange "coup attempt" of June 1940 to have the King and Queen force a change of leadership in Halifax' favour.

 

As somewhat of a Historian, I find no fault in appreciating Mr. Churchill's writings of any subject he covers as he is a primary source whether you are studying political events or war histories. To state or imply that a primary source is obsolete places me as a historian quite distant from this particular view so I guess that identifies me for what that is worth. As to placing a bust of Mr. Churchill in our seats of government I probably would consider him a friend of our people and would not be offended............however if the givers expected him to stand next to Abraham Lincoln's bust thereby halfing the attention paid thereto, I would rather leave Mr. Lincoln alone in his stature since it is in our government's places of exhibit. No offenses intended but he is not our government's symbol so his display could be returned and that is not an insult at all. In fact, it would be to any students advantage, in a literary sense, to study what Mr. Churchill has to say and the way he says many things. A detailed reading of his material would benefit any student in the areas of history, English writing, and English speaking so what possibly could be obsolete about reading his material unless "education" is the thing that is obsolete. If I had continued as a teacher I certainly would maintain that a very good picture of the events surrounding WWII could be had by reading all that I could about the "Big Three" leaders of Russia, The United States, and England to get a start for understanding the post war era which includes subjects such as the "Cold War" and the "Nuclear Age" that was to follow. I see no problem with "starting" with primary sources to gain an up to date knowledge of history in fact I would be against "starting" with someone else's conclusions as a secondary source as that would sacrifice the accuracy and feel of having known the primary source first. No offense to a secondary conclusion but it cannot school as well as going through the complete experience, in this case inclusion of the literary skills Mr. Churchill can contribute that are a complete aside to the historical facts he may bring forth. If you stir interest first you will find there is time for both. I just had to put forth my 2 cents on this.

 

Took a few bad pics of the grave site when I was there few weeks ago if there is any interest.

 

The further you get from those who were there, the less accurate a written history will be.

 

Well,I think it is the opposite:we know more of WWI than those who were there,we know more of WWII than those who were there,the same of the Vietnam war,of the Wars of Napoleon,the whole history of communist Soviet Union has to be written :this will be something for the next generation .
The point is that those who were there had an incomplete and not very reliable picture of what was going on.

 

I think Gromit and LJad both make good points, and to me just proves you need both personal experiences and future studies and research to make your own conclusions and beliefs. That's basic history. The hard part is navigating through what to give greater merit to.

I wouldn't take Churchill's entire written word as the gospel ( as stated, he was a politician). Today however, one must choose carefully what new books to invest in about him and the war since so many try to discredit him for one reason or another. Pat Buchanan's book comes to mind, which has not added anything of value or knowledge on him or the war, just revisionist dribble.

 

By all means, yes!

 

Winston Churchill was, without a doubt, the most well informed and influential politician of his day. His extensive contacts allowed him to be much better informed than the Crown Government of the day. When most people in Europe were giving in to the new German political scene, and in some cases openly admiring it's accomplishments, Winston was sounding the warning gong, flying in the face of politicians of his day. Winston was the right man for the job after the Chamberlain government collapsed. No other politician had held every cabinet post except Prime Minister, and no other politician galvanised a British public that had grown very weary and cynical of policy issueing forth from Whitehall. Churchill's funeral was a VERY sad occasion, for the country had lost the man who had done the very utmost in the public shpere to stop the rot of European Fascism.....and given timely warnings as to the dangers of the Stalin regime.....

Having said all that, his memoirs were self serving excuses to cover up the ULTRA secret and to attack those that were no longer around to defend themselves. But, in this attack, Winston was only getting back a bit of family revenge for the shabby manner in which his father had been taken to the political cleaners.

World War 2 without Winston would have been over very quickly with an appeasing settlement, retaining Adolf in power. To Winston, this was the great no-no that had to be avoided, even by getting into bed with someone he despised, Josef Stalin.

 

Someone above made the comment that Halifax "did not believe he would make a good war leader."

The way I understood the issue, Halifax turned the job down for the simple reason that he was a member of the House of Lords. No Lord can become a PM under any circumstances. The PM MUST originate from the House of Commons. Whatever Halifax thought of himself is immaterial. He was simply bowing to tradition. Now, the motivation for this may well have been self doubt, but somehow I'm not so sure of that,. This has never been expressed by Halifax himself to my knowledge, but, he could have been using his Lords membership as an excuse for turning down a direct request from the Soveriegn himself. The King is on record as rejoicing in the fact of Britain's lack of Allies at this point of the war, so maybe he was making Halifax an offer he could most certainly turn down, to clear the way for a man who was really not affiliated with any political party of the time. Churchill always said that his "Years in the political wilderness" had given him just the experiences needed by a PM at this stage in Britain's long history. The King may well have realised this as well, but offering the job solely to Winston may well have been a decidedly unpopular move, smacking of dictatorial apointment.

I also believe Halifax knew what was on the King's mind at this meeting, and played the part of the reluctant debutante to perfection, clearing the way for the most unwanted politician of his day to assume government without an election.

 

There was nothing unconstitutional of a Lord becoming PM, he also could disclaim his peerages .
The fact is also that everyone was preferring Halifax,who was very PC,while everyone disliked Winston .If Halifax had wanted,he was PM.

 

Wow.

Well, to start with the comment made immediately above is quite correct - there was and still is NO prohibition in law or custom on the Prime Minister being a member of the House of Lords. Quite the reverse - since the post of Prime Minister originated under the Hanoverians, far more Lords have been Prime Minister than "commoners".

In modern times...the "historical" tradition of 1940 is that halifax didn't accept the post because he saw the impracticality of leading the nation from the Lords...for one thing, he would supposedly not have been able to address or be questioned in the House of Commons....

This is balderdash - the House of Commons can invite ANYONE it wants to come and speeak therein. This was the rationalisation put on the situation for popular consumption at the time. Halifax didn't accept the post because he knew that the price of change was a National Government with Labour and Liberal representation in the War Cabinet - and he realised he wouldn't be acceptable to the Labour Party, so there would be no National Government, and thus party-political chaos right in the middle of a war - and with the Germans turning their lignition keys deep in the Ardennes as it turned out!

For a good, easy-read into the REAL 1940 situation and events - see Laurence Thompson's "1940". Thompson was the Daily Telegraph's Parliamentary Correspondent for decades, and had first-name-terms access to a lot of the 1940 players, and to their diaries and the Commons Library.

On the subject of Churchill not being afiliated to any party - this is quite incorrect; he was a backbench Conservative MP...he was just not liked by the pre-war Front Bench because of his views. And remember - he WAS affiliated with the previous government since September 1939 - Chamberlain made him First Lord of the Admiralty!

Finally - the interview with the King was absolutely NOT the turning point in the political crisis, that was just the final rubber-stamping of the changeover; the important meeting was the famous three-way meeting between Chamberlain, Halifax and Churchiill. In the UK, even as far back as then, the King wasn't in a constitutional position to truly influence the parliamentary succession - his only role was in the event of a hung parliament, or something like that.

 

Good one Phylo....nice clarification for those of us English speakers who are not aquainted with the niceties of Parlimentary democracy

 

Excellent Post Phylo.

Just to complete the bit about House of Commons\Lords. Lord Halifax could not sit in the House of Commons since he did not represent any Constituency.

However, it would no have been beyond the wit of man to enact The Peerage Act (passed in 1963) which allowed "Lords" to revoke their title and get elected to the House of Commons. Lord Stansgate (now Anthony Wedgewood-Benn), Minister in various Labour Governments, the Earl of Home (Alec Douglas-Home), Prime Minister in 1963 and Lord Hailsham (Quintin-Hogg) and others were all able to take advantage of this Act. There is no reason why it could not have been enacted in 1939 if Halifax and his Conservative Allies had really wanted it.

 

Yes - you are right. He was out in the Channel during the Normandy Breakout I believe - 2 weeks later?