Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 16:22:15 GMT 1
Taste of war is an interesting read which goes into reasonable detail regarding Churchill's attitude to our Indian and Bengali brothers and the role he played in the famine that needlessly killed millions of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 16:45:07 GMT 1
The post I responded to has been deleted
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 27, 2015 16:48:12 GMT 1
As someone who is a self-proclaimed Labourite and trade unionist, would you then accept that it was the influence of GMB and Unite through unlawful and immoral practices that elected Miliband as your leader and therefore proves trade unions are hideously out of touch with the electorate? Whereas the Tory party and UKIP who get most of their financing from big business are always in touch with the electorate. Nige puffing away on a ciggie and supping a pint doesn't make him a man of the people, it makes him astute enough to know how to look like one and fool a large enough %age of the electorate into thinking that he is. The Labour party is far from perfect, but I'd rather them in my corner if hard times hit, than any of your lot.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on May 27, 2015 16:50:10 GMT 1
There were no criminal charges with regards to the Falkirk scandal because there was insufficient grounds to prosecute. However an internal investigation did take place which led to two members being suspended and a high profile Labour member quitting. This was a big factor behind the reforms to the voting system at the beginning of last year to the 'one member, one vote' legislation which passed through with an 86% majority vote. Part of the reason for this change was because Ed Miliband and many Labour members felt the system was unfair and gave the unions too much power, therefore it can be assumed it was immoral and unworkable.
Electoral fraud is a criminal offence, therefore unlawful and leaked documents have since been released which go some way to confirming UNITE had 'manipulated' the party's selection of a parliamentary candidate. It can also be assumed that some level of corruption has taken place.
Hope that clears that one up.
I'll try and address Shrewed46 directly this time.
As someone who is a self-proclaimed Labourite and trade unionist, would you then accept that it was the influence of GMB and Unite through unlawful and immoral practices that elected Miliband as your leader and therefore proves trade unions are hideously out of touch with the electorate?
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on May 27, 2015 16:53:24 GMT 1
As someone who is a self-proclaimed Labourite and trade unionist, would you then accept that it was the influence of GMB and Unite through unlawful and immoral practices that elected Miliband as your leader and therefore proves trade unions are hideously out of touch with the electorate? Whereas the Tory party and UKIP who get most of their financing from big business are always in touch with the electorate. Nige puffing away on a ciggie and supping a pint doesn't make him a man of the people, it makes him astute enough to know how to look like one and fool a large enough %age of the electorate into thinking that he is. The Labour party is far from perfect, but I'd rather them in my corner if hard times hit, than any of your lot. It would seem the majority of the electorate would disagree with you there, but each to their own and all that.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on May 27, 2015 16:57:32 GMT 1
As someone who is a self-proclaimed Labourite and trade unionist, would you then accept that it was the influence of GMB and Unite through unlawful and immoral practices that elected Miliband as your leader and therefore proves trade unions are hideously out of touch with the electorate? Whereas the Tory party and UKIP who get most of their financing from big business are always in touch with the electorate. www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htmPray tell, so where does the majority of that £26 million figure come?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 21:06:50 GMT 1
I didn't watch the programme. However what was promised to the post-1945 electorate it was hardly surprising that Churchill was unelectable. Did this come across in the programme? On a general point it is surprising that with all the historical evidence that the myth of Churchill still persists today. The idea that if wasn't for him we'd all be speaking Germany is nonsense. If Churchill hadn't won power and continued the war then the Lord Halifax faction would have sued for peace and Hitler would have turned East earlier. Hitler had no interest in invading Britain. Also Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the USSR. We could have had a monkey as a war leader and the outcome would have been the same militarily. Of course his effect on people shouldn't be underestimated as suggested by Shropshire Tenor, so as a propaganda tool he was excellent. Can't agree on that. Hitler for starters agreed a deal with Stalin for peace but still invaded. Do you really think that he would left us alone having conquered most of western Europe. If we had appeased him in 1939 it could have left us open to occupation without even an nazi invasion in this case an unopposed peace keeping force from germany, ha ha. br]Look what happened when Neville chamberlain tried to negotiate. 'i have a piece of paper from chauncellor hitler' speech. That showed that peace was not on hitlers agenda, world domination was though. Germany foreign policy toward 'middle europe' or the east had been consistently the same from Bismark through to Hitler. Namely living space and access to resources. Even the Weimar Republic looked to overturn the treaties of 1918 by conceding territory in the west and guaranteeing borders in favour of gaining more land in the east. The deal with Stalin was a pragmatic solution for both sides while short term strategic objectives where met. Though it appears that Hitler hoped that a lasting peace and trade deals with the USSR would be a reality it soon became apparent that this wouldn't happen as Stalin had his own ambitions in the region. This is long before 1939. We all know why Britain and France went to war in 1939 and we know why Germany had to knock out France first. Hitler was planning what was to become Barbarossa while the Battle of Britain was being fought. As for 'appeasement' it was never about peace. Chamberlain realised that Britain wasn't ready for war in 1938. Modern scholarship suggests that the Munich meeting was a means of buying time to allow Britain to rearm. Don't forget that Britain had started rearming but wouldn't be ready to fight a war until around 1942. Ironically Germany wouldn't have properly ready until the same time. Hitler admired the British Empire and was happy for us to maintain that while he forged a new empire in middle Europe. This is not to say that a future conflict may not have happened. This brings me on to another point about Churchill. He was an imperialist of the old school. For him WWII wasn't about freeing Europe, but maintaining the Empire from the perceived threat of Germany. This is the Empire that supported Britain through 1940, Britain was hardly alone.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 27, 2015 21:18:43 GMT 1
Whereas the Tory party and UKIP who get most of their financing from big business are always in touch with the electorate. Nige puffing away on a ciggie and supping a pint doesn't make him a man of the people, it makes him astute enough to know how to look like one and fool a large enough %age of the electorate into thinking that he is. The Labour party is far from perfect, but I'd rather them in my corner if hard times hit, than any of your lot. It would seem the majority of the electorate would disagree with you there, but each to their own and all that. The majority of the electorate didn't vote Tory, did they?
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 27, 2015 21:57:45 GMT 1
Disaster! Tony Blair has resigned as Middle East Peace Enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if all hell breaks loose over there now.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 27, 2015 22:44:18 GMT 1
Disaster! Tony Blair has resigned as Middle East Peace Enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if all hell breaks loose over there now. Now, hey, look, let me be quite clear, the problem with the Israeli's and Palestinians is they moved away from New Labour.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 27, 2015 22:59:03 GMT 1
Disaster! Tony Blair has resigned as Middle East Peace Enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if all hell breaks loose over there now. Now, hey, look, let me be quite clear, the problem with the Israeli's and Palestinians is they moved away from New Labour. Very good!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 23:47:41 GMT 1
Have you been talking to my bank manager, because he's told a fib. Relative is a strange concept of course I am wealthier than some and poorer than other. Equally to define capitalism by the size of your bank balance seems strange, how much do I have in my bank account to be a capitalist. The basis of my socialism dates back to 1926, when Churchills policies led to my maternal Grandfather being locked out of the ship yards on the Clyde and did not work again until 1939, my paternal grandfather was a local union leader during the General Strike. Once again you seem to be getting confused between hard work and capitalism. Many of the poorest in society, in my opinion, work the hardest because that is the only way they can survive not because they are capitalists That was easier than i thought!! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 0:27:43 GMT 1
I didn't watch the programme. However what was promised to the post-1945 electorate it was hardly surprising that Churchill was unelectable. Did this come across in the programme? On a general point it is surprising that with all the historical evidence that the myth of Churchill still persists today. The idea that if wasn't for him we'd all be speaking Germany is nonsense. If Churchill hadn't won power and continued the war then the Lord Halifax faction would have sued for peace and Hitler would have turned East earlier. Hitler had no interest in invading Britain. Also Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the USSR. We could have had a monkey as a war leader and the outcome would have been the same militarily. Of course his effect on people shouldn't be underestimated as suggested by Shropshire Tenor, so as a propaganda tool he was excellent. Just thought Id note Churchill became prime minister once the Germans invaded Norway in April 1940. Despite the destruction of the German Navy they had a sea port at Narvik, supply of Iron Ore and did not invade Russia for a whole year after this. Churchill came to power when France was about to be swept and Operation Sealion was still a major possibility. Germany commanded the air and now controled mainland Europe. And to mention peace with an imperialist. Neville Chamberlain came back with a worthless piece of paper thats now in the Cadbury research library.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on May 28, 2015 0:38:03 GMT 1
Making Tony Blair Middle East Peace Envoy was on a par with making King Herod CEO of Mothercare.
Just iPlayered the Churchill program. Informative stuff. I had not seen that footage of him on the hustings at "The Stow" being jeered and booed before.
The masses were not such a dull supine flock as they are now. How anybody can vote for a party whose manifesto pledge is to read our emails and texts and listen to our phone calls is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 6:54:46 GMT 1
I didn't watch the programme. However what was promised to the post-1945 electorate it was hardly surprising that Churchill was unelectable. Did this come across in the programme? On a general point it is surprising that with all the historical evidence that the myth of Churchill still persists today. The idea that if wasn't for him we'd all be speaking Germany is nonsense. If Churchill hadn't won power and continued the war then the Lord Halifax faction would have sued for peace and Hitler would have turned East earlier. Hitler had no interest in invading Britain. Also Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the USSR. We could have had a monkey as a war leader and the outcome would have been the same militarily. Of course his effect on people shouldn't be underestimated as suggested by Shropshire Tenor, so as a propaganda tool he was excellent. Just thought Id note Churchill became prime minister once the Germans invaded Norway in April 1940. Despite the destruction of the German Navy they had a sea port at Narvik, supply of Iron Ore and did not invade Russia for a whole year after this. Churchill came to power when France was about to be swept and Operation Sealion was still a major possibility. Germany commanded the air and now controled mainland Europe. And to mention peace with an imperialist. Neville Chamberlain came back with a worthless piece of paper thats now in the Cadbury research library. I've no idea what you're trying to say. However, the Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe and there was oil in the Caucusus region. As I've argued Hitler hoped to trade with the USSR, but that was never going to happen. The invasion of Norway was a response to British political moves in the region which threatened iron ore supplies. A woefully under prepared British force was defeated due to not being ready to fight a major war. Chamberlain and the British High Command knew this by the end of the 30s. Hence the political rhetoric of peace in our time should really have been buying time. However when you consider the context of the 30s and a generation that lived through WWI that phrase made political sense. Not only was Britain starting to expand its armed forces by the end of the 30s, staff exercises between the French and British had already taken place prior to 1939. Chamberlain knew that war was inevitable , but Britain wasn't ready in 1938, or even in 1940.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 12:14:07 GMT 1
Some interesting points and whilst Britain had largely pursued a policy of disarmament for moral as well as fiscal reasons in reality the German's military strength was still a bit of a mirage as our most accurate intilligence about German strength was horribly miscalculated- over estimating the German strength which in turn helped shape foreign policy and political decision making.
Hitler also worked on the premises that the British political elite were more concerned about the the communist threat in the east, that public and political opinion has revised that the Versailles treaty was perhaps a little ball breaking and that following WW 1 no one really wanted to dive straight into confrontation.
Regards the German thoughts towards the East non only did they want lebensraum but alas the Slavs were viewed as something akin to sub human- hense the different treatment of the prisoners in the east compared with treatment of British/French prisoners etc.
The pact was merely a convenient deal that provided both the soviets and Nazi's the ability to delay the onset of an inevitable conflict. The British sold out the Soviet Union with its stead fast refusal to commit to an accord or treaty for fear of the insidious march of communism.
Likewise if we had intervened when the Czechoslovakians had asked the likelihood is that Hitler would have had to back track as historical evidence shows he did not have the resources to force the issue, but alas our slightly ill informed prejudice and poorintelligence put paid to that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 14:33:20 GMT 1
Just thought Id note Churchill became prime minister once the Germans invaded Norway in April 1940. Despite the destruction of the German Navy they had a sea port at Narvik, supply of Iron Ore and did not invade Russia for a whole year after this. Churchill came to power when France was about to be swept and Operation Sealion was still a major possibility. Germany commanded the air and now controled mainland Europe. And to mention peace with an imperialist. Neville Chamberlain came back with a worthless piece of paper thats now in the Cadbury research library. I've no idea what you're trying to say. However, the Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe and there was oil in the Caucusus region. As I've argued Hitler hoped to trade with the USSR, but that was never going to happen. The invasion of Norway was a response to British political moves in the region which threatened iron ore supplies. A woefully under prepared British force was defeated due to not being ready to fight a major war. Chamberlain and the British High Command knew this by the end of the 30s. Hence the political rhetoric of peace in our time should really have been buying time. However when you consider the context of the 30s and a generation that lived through WWI that phrase made political sense. Not only was Britain starting to expand its armed forces by the end of the 30s, staff exercises between the French and British had already taken place prior to 1939. Chamberlain knew that war was inevitable , but Britain wasn't ready in 1938, or even in 1940. Explain the quote of Chamberlain to Montgomery when in France "I dont think its very likely Germany will attack us". Montgomery responded to this statement quite angrily by telling Chamberlain it was inebitable. Chamberlain didnt even forsee the invasion of Norway which is why he resigned (Although to be fair nobody did). If he expected war why else would he have resigned? I do understand Britain was not ready in terms of numbers but more importantly Britain was obsessed on Naval strength and the Army which in 1918 was one of the elite in the world had become nothing more than a Colonial police force due to neglect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 16:14:10 GMT 1
Hitler also worked on the premises that the British political elite were more concerned about the the communist threat in the east, that public and political opinion has revised that the Versailles treaty was perhaps a little ball breaking and that following WW 1 no one really wanted to dive straight into confrontation. The pact was merely a convenient deal that provided both the soviets and Nazi's the ability to delay the onset of an inevitable conflict. The British sold out the Soviet Union with its stead fast refusal to commit to an accord or treaty for fear of the insidious march of communism.Likewise if we had intervened when the Czechoslovakians had asked the likelihood is that Hitler would have had to back track as historical evidence shows he did not have the resources to force the issue, but alas our slightly ill informed prejudice and poorintelligence put paid to that The whole of central and western Europe was concerned by Communism, which helps explain the rise of National Socialism, Fascism and assorted right - wing authoritative governments. The lesser of two evils so to speak. I personally believe, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest this, that Hitler believed that the British political elite were more concerned about the preservation of the Empire. Hitler played a gigantic game of bluff, playing on the fears of Liberal Democracies and the recent memory of WWI, to achieve his aims. Even if intelligence was right the question remains whether intervention would have succeeded. I think not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 16:41:00 GMT 1
I've no idea what you're trying to say. However, the Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe and there was oil in the Caucusus region. As I've argued Hitler hoped to trade with the USSR, but that was never going to happen. The invasion of Norway was a response to British political moves in the region which threatened iron ore supplies. A woefully under prepared British force was defeated due to not being ready to fight a major war. Chamberlain and the British High Command knew this by the end of the 30s. Hence the political rhetoric of peace in our time should really have been buying time. However when you consider the context of the 30s and a generation that lived through WWI that phrase made political sense. Not only was Britain starting to expand its armed forces by the end of the 30s, staff exercises between the French and British had already taken place prior to 1939. Chamberlain knew that war was inevitable , but Britain wasn't ready in 1938, or even in 1940. Explain the quote of Chamberlain to Montgomery when in France "I dont think its very likely Germany will attack us". Montgomery responded to this statement quite angrily by telling Chamberlain it was inebitable. Chamberlain didnt even forsee the invasion of Norway which is why he resigned (Although to be fair nobody did). If he expected war why else would he have resigned? I do understand Britain was not ready in terms of numbers but more importantly Britain was obsessed on Naval strength and the Army which in 1918 was one of the elite in the world had become nothing more than a Colonial police force due to neglect. I don't know the quote. What is the source and in what context was it said. Recent scholarship has shown that Chamberlain and various Chiefs of Staff believed that Britain was unprepared for war. As you point out the armed forces were geared toward defending Empire. However the army was expanding as was the RAF. Numbers weren't a problem. Historians such as Julian Jackson and Rodney Harrison have shown that in terms of numbers Britain and France out numbered Germany, the RAF alone outnumbering the Luftwaffe. However this doesn't mean that Britain, or for that matter France, was ready for an all out European war economically, politically, psychologically, or technologically. It is often forgotten that during this period Chamberlain was ill. He died of cancer 6 months later. He got the blame for major intelligence failings and the burden of running a Liberal Democracy ruled by public opinion. Hitler had no such concerns. Hence my point up thread that Chamberlain and the Chiefs calculated that Britain wouldn't be ready until 1942.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 28, 2015 16:58:22 GMT 1
On the subject of Churchill's imperialism, is he to blame for Britain not taking a leading role in the formation of the EEC in the 1950's?
Although interested in history I've not studied that period, but my Belgian family say that Churchill believed that Britain did not need Europe and wanted to concentrate on Empire trade, therefore rejecting overtures from the founding fathers of the EEC.
These founding fathers were my grandfather's political hero, Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium plus Joseph Luns of Holland and the Luxemburg PM who wanted Britain in the organisation as a counter to the strength of France and Germany.
It's forgotten now, but the British were hugely popular in the Benelux as we were seen as the people who had saved Europe from the Nazis. This goodwill largely evaporated in the '70s as our image was changed by the activities of our football hooligans.
So, if Churchill had not prevailed, could we have been the leaders of Europe instead of being outsiders begging for treaty change?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 17:34:54 GMT 1
On the subject of Churchill's imperialism, is he to blame for Britain not taking a leading role in the formation of the EEC in the 1950's? Although interested in history I've not studied that period, but my Belgian family say that Churchill believed that Britain did not need Europe and wanted to concentrate on Empire trade, therefore rejecting overtures from the founding fathers of the EEC. These founding fathers were my grandfather's political hero, Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium plus Joseph Luns of Holland and the Luxemburg PM who wanted Britain in the organisation as a counter to the strength of France and Germany. It's forgotten now, but the British were hugely popular in the Benelux as we were seen as the people who had saved Europe from the Nazis. This goodwill largely evaporated in the '70s as our image was changed by the activities of our football hooligans. So, if Churchill had not prevailed, could we have been the leaders of Europe instead of being outsiders begging for treaty change? Interesting question. I think he was for political union, but only with the backing of the Empire/Commonwealth and provided it served the Empire's interests I vaguely remember one of my history professors saying something along the lines that a CIA backed organisation funded Spaak's Euro project. I find this hard to believe seeing as he was a Socialist.... By the 50s Communism was the only perceived threat and maybe Churchill was more worried about that in Europe and Communist independence movements int he Empire.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on May 28, 2015 19:38:49 GMT 1
This is a good thread. I am very impressed with the knowledge that some of the posters have. Thank you. I have learned a lot and am encouraged to research more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 23:12:13 GMT 1
Explain the quote of Chamberlain to Montgomery when in France "I dont think its very likely Germany will attack us". Montgomery responded to this statement quite angrily by telling Chamberlain it was inebitable. Chamberlain didnt even forsee the invasion of Norway which is why he resigned (Although to be fair nobody did). If he expected war why else would he have resigned? I do understand Britain was not ready in terms of numbers but more importantly Britain was obsessed on Naval strength and the Army which in 1918 was one of the elite in the world had become nothing more than a Colonial police force due to neglect. I don't know the quote. What is the source and in what context was it said. Recent scholarship has shown that Chamberlain and various Chiefs of Staff believed that Britain was unprepared for war. As you point out the armed forces were geared toward defending Empire. However the army was expanding as was the RAF. Numbers weren't a problem. Historians such as Julian Jackson and Rodney Harrison have shown that in terms of numbers Britain and France out numbered Germany, the RAF alone outnumbering the Luftwaffe. However this doesn't mean that Britain, or for that matter France, was ready for an all out European war economically, politically, psychologically, or technologically. It is often forgotten that during this period Chamberlain was ill. He died of cancer 6 months later. He got the blame for major intelligence failings and the burden of running a Liberal Democracy ruled by public opinion. Hitler had no such concerns. Hence my point up thread that Chamberlain and the Chiefs calculated that Britain wouldn't be ready until 1942. Ive just a week ago done an exam on Britain and the second World war answering the question. I believe it was Fraser or Hastings who quoted Chamberlain when BEF was in France. I dont doubt many reasons but Historian interpret sources in different ways. Doesnt mean either of us are right or wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 6:52:28 GMT 1
I don't know the quote. What is the source and in what context was it said. Recent scholarship has shown that Chamberlain and various Chiefs of Staff believed that Britain was unprepared for war. As you point out the armed forces were geared toward defending Empire. However the army was expanding as was the RAF. Numbers weren't a problem. Historians such as Julian Jackson and Rodney Harrison have shown that in terms of numbers Britain and France out numbered Germany, the RAF alone outnumbering the Luftwaffe. However this doesn't mean that Britain, or for that matter France, was ready for an all out European war economically, politically, psychologically, or technologically. It is often forgotten that during this period Chamberlain was ill. He died of cancer 6 months later. He got the blame for major intelligence failings and the burden of running a Liberal Democracy ruled by public opinion. Hitler had no such concerns. Hence my point up thread that Chamberlain and the Chiefs calculated that Britain wouldn't be ready until 1942. Ive just a week ago done an exam on Britain and the second World war answering the question. I believe it was Fraser or Hastings who quoted Chamberlain when BEF was in France. I dont doubt many reasons but Historian interpret sources in different ways. Doesnt mean either of us are right or wrong. Absolutely it's about interpretation. However it is interesting that you mentioned Hastings, who has a particular agenda against Chamberlain. As I'm sure you mentioned in your exam all sources have to be treated with caution, noting the political context of the time, etc. What level of exam was it? GIVE, A, or degree?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 11:17:07 GMT 1
Ive just a week ago done an exam on Britain and the second World war answering the question. I believe it was Fraser or Hastings who quoted Chamberlain when BEF was in France. I dont doubt many reasons but Historian interpret sources in different ways. Doesnt mean either of us are right or wrong. Absolutely it's about interpretation. However it is interesting that you mentioned Hastings, who has a particular agenda against Chamberlain. As I'm sure you mentioned in your exam all sources have to be treated with caution, noting the political context of the time, etc. What level of exam was it? GIVE, A, or degree? Second year in my degree.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on May 29, 2015 12:26:46 GMT 1
If dmshrew knows as much about history as he does about football, then we're all in for a treat. Wonder whether his hatred for Neville Chamberlain exceed the levels of bile shown towards Matt Richards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 12:54:12 GMT 1
Absolutely it's about interpretation. However it is interesting that you mentioned Hastings, who has a particular agenda against Chamberlain. As I'm sure you mentioned in your exam all sources have to be treated with caution, noting the political context of the time, etc. What level of exam was it? GIVE, A, or degree? Second year in my degree. Excellent. Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 13:13:28 GMT 1
This is a good thread. I am very impressed with the knowledge that some of the posters have. Assuming that it is all their own work and not a simple cut and paste job
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 13:23:27 GMT 1
The unusual thing about this for historians was that Churchill could build up a certain myth using documents which in the modern day he would not have been allowed to. It was only later that the more likely truth was revealed. That is not entirely down to interpretation. In the programme only Max Hastings of all the talking heads put up some kind of defence for him.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 30, 2015 17:03:10 GMT 1
I was impressed with the contribution of the historian Richard Overy for the way he quite dispassionately put his points and I felt I was better informed as a result.
On one point Overy reminded me of my own studies in history: that Churchill was by no means the only figure to speak against the policy of appeasement - and probably not the first.
Also, hearing my parents talk about pre-war policy at that time - and my grandmother too - the strong view they had was that Chamberlain was playing for time rather than being completely duped by Hitler. I don't think it is entirely black and white but Overy's comment about the increase in military spending from the 1930s did make me wonder whether Chamberlain's policy was one of hope for the best but plan for the worst.
Interestingly Overy was involved in an academic dispute with another historian many years ago about whether Germany was driven to war because of its economic problems or because of Nazi ideology.
My father was a working class Tory but voted Labour in 1945 (whilst in the Far East) because he thought the Labour Party leadership had good people in it.
|
|