Lions Led by Donkeys

Discussion in 'Prewar' started by Gage, Jan 23, 2010.

  1. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    As both my Grandfather's survived WW1 abet wounded, I do'nt realy have an opinion on this subject but I wounder if the great loss of life had an effect on WW2, Monty in particular.
    The man was castigated particulary by the Americans for being too cautious and exact with his Battle Plans (Market Garden excepted) and his attitude to casualties and his troops, which as we know nearly cost him his command a number of times.
    Just a thought!
    Rob

    The legacy of the slaughter in WW1 had long lasting repercussions. Monty certainly had to contend with political considerations of excessive casualties, particularly from the Dominion troops. Crerar was caught firmly between Monty and Mackenzie King over the use and command of Canadian troops. While it was frustrating to British leaders, the Commonwealth governments were reluctant to relenquish total control as they had done in 1914-1918.

    A little blurb from 'www.diggerhistory.info' gives you an idea of the sentiment.
    If World War I, the "Great War", is noted for anything it is poor leadership at General Officer level. As a class the generals of all European armies were a snobbish, protected boys club with rigid patterns of thought, a surprising lack of ability to learn from mistakes, a refusal to read history and a disregard for the lives of the common soldier that would be called criminal today. The Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, South Africans and Americans were much less set in their ways.
    Pickett's "charge" up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg should have proven the futility of marching in ordered ranks into massed rifle fire and artillery. General Buller proved the same thing in South Africa. Nobody learned and the reason is that as a class the Officers did not care about casualty lists, only winning or losing. The invention of the machine gun with the fire power of 200 rifles and the use of barbed wire set up to funnel advancing troops into killing grounds should have caused a major rethink of tactics. It didn't, even after the disaster of the Somme, where 90% of Britain's horrendous casualty lists were caused by machine guns.
    Whole battalions were wiped out, to a man. Most of them never closed with the enemy, who sat reasonably comfortable behind barbed wire entanglements up to 80 metres deep, in concrete pillboxes or well constructed trenches with not much to worry about except artillery. And the British Generals used that, unsuccessfully, to try to cut the wire.
    Of all the General's who were stupid, who didn't get their boots dirty while they ordered millions of men to their death in senseless slaughter the top prize has to go to the Butcher of the Somme, the architect of the slaughter of ANZAC's at 3rd Ypres, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I find the above from digger history, particularly the final paragraph, a pretty lazy assessment.
    I don't read that much on the first war, but I gradually plug away (there are many here that know a lot more than me, scarily so, though unsurprisingly they're largely staying away from this exceptionally well-worn old business), & with every bit I do read it seems apparent that the revisionism of recent decades was well overdue.

    This appears to me to be a war that has had far too much of it's 'accepted' history affected by the writings of poets & assorted other socio-political postwar axe-grinders. I'd certainly concede that there were horrors, and incompetent commanders, and slaughters... but not universally as is so often said, far from it. And horror and slaughter and incompetence happens in every war, particularly when new technology & military ideas are forced into play.
    Doesn't the WW2 Normandy campaign carry one of the highest casualty rates ever for an allied army? but we don't seem to get the same perception of that as laid on so thickly by quotes like the one above.
    One thing that strongly alerts me that there is indeed much 'Poppycock' out there on WW1 is the apparent perceptions of so many veterans, who seemed highly irritated by the rather mawkish version of events that became the normal account as the years passed. Not an overall account that they appear to have recognised.

    The German Army was eventually beaten in the field.
    Outfought by an opposition moulded into modern shape by those very senior officers that receive so much criticism.

    But anyway, as I said my interest is purely dilettante, and I shall go back to reading about tracked things.
    It just bugs me a little that there are so many established myths of the great war that seem to fall so easily with a little serious/fresh scrutiny.
    Not that WW2 doesn't have a fair few of those itself...

    ~A
     
  3. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Back in 1992 John Terraine commented in reply to a letter I wrote about his address to the WFA, that just holding the line was what filled up the Cemeteries not the big battles.
    as he says,
    "..'normal trench warfare wastage' which, by mid-1916 , amounted to 35,000 per month..."

    Everyone thinks is was troops being mown down in masses ranks is what caused the huge casualty figures.
    In fact it was the mundane day to day holding the line .
    The daily meat-grinder of fighting the main body of the German Army in the field in an industrialed war and beating them.
    He said near the end of his address "....it was not the famous battles, Loos, the Somme, Arras , Passchendaele , that filled the cemeteries, but 1564 days of unceasing war."
     
    von Poop likes this.
  4. geoff501

    geoff501 Achtung Feind hört mit

  5. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    This appears to me to be a war that has had far too much of it's 'accepted' history affected by the writings of poets & assorted other socio-political postwar axe-grinders. I'd certainly concede that there were horrors, and incompetent commanders, and slaughters... but not universally as is so often said, far from it. And horror and slaughter and incompetence happens in every war, particularly when new technology & military ideas are forced into play.
    Adam, would you put historians such as Hew Strachan (currently writing a multi-volume history of WW1), John Keegan, or Trevor Wilson in that bracket? In what way are any of these academic historians affected by 'poets & assorted other socio-political postwar axe-grinders'? And are French historians affected by British poets and mistaken about Verdun?

    As for the war poets, they were a unique phenomenon and knew more about the Great War than a whole host of modern revisionists ever will. When Sassoon penned The General, which I quoted, he was speaking with authority and anger about his comrades who had died. When Sassoon had recovered from his head wound and shell-shock he was offered a home posting, having more than done his bit, but he began to feel guilty about not fighting along his old comrades and he went back to active service in France in November 1917.

    As for the other War Poets:

    Wilfred Owen enlisted in 1915, was awarded the military cross, and was killed in action a week before the war ended.

    Alan Seeger, killed on the 4th day of the Battle of the Somme.

    Charles Sorley, killed in August 1915 in the Battle of Loos.

    Edward Thomas, killed in action in April 1917.

    Arthur Graeme West, killed by a sniper's bullet in April 1917.

    Siegfried Sassoon, a captain in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, survived the war. But he was wounded twice and won the Military Cross in November 1917 when he carried a wounded man back out of no-man's-land under heavy fire.
    Doesn't the WW2 Normandy campaign carry one of the highest casualty rates ever for an allied army? but we don't seem to get the same perception of that as laid on so thickly by quotes like the one above [presumably mine].
    Without going into the numbers game, the key difference is that all engaged in the Normandy campaign had been trained for months, knew the ground from detailed models (particularly the junior officers), were well motivated, and above all knew what they were fighting for. Those fighting in the Battle of the Somme were well versed in the drill, they were told that at the whistle they were to climb over the trench parapet with fixed bayonets and to walk at a brisk pace, not run, towards the enemy line. Order was to be strictly maintained with no stops to assist the wounded.

    One thing that strongly alerts me that there is indeed much 'Poppycock' out there on WW1 is the apparent perceptions of so many veterans, who seemed highly irritated by the rather mawkish version of events that became the normal account as the years passed. Not an overall account that they appear to have recognised.
    Have you read Vain Glory edited by Guy Chapman, M.C., published in 1937? The entire book of near 800 pages is entirely veterans' accounts. Here are the opening lines of Guy Chapman's introductionThis book is not an anthology of literature. It is an attempt to display the War of 1914-18 through the eyes of those who took part in it. You may ask: Has it not been done truthfully by hundreds of historians? The answer is, No. There is no truth about the War; and the best historians can do is to give certain aspects of its strategy and tactics, ... etc. And even then they are hard pushed to sift the true from the false. Oral evidence is frequently evasive. Written evidence is sometimes worse. The nearest contacts with truth are the accounts of eye-witnesses of incidences from which a general picture can be built up. ...

    As for lions led by donkeys, here are some pertinent observations on the Third Battle of Ypres which opened on 7 June 1917, with the first attack carried out at Messines. The brainchild of General Sir Hubert Gough, the corps commander highly regarded by Haigh. I'll reveal who's diary I am quoting at the end.... As we could make no headway against Gough's determination to sink his Army in a bottomless bog, we took up the question with G.H.Q., but with no greater success. We pointed out that the surface was of small depth, that below it lay a bed of clay, that much of the ground we were to attack over had at one time or another been reclaimed from the sea, and that, bearing these points in mind, a bombardment would convert it into a bog. That this was likely was proved by the fact that in peace time the farmers were heavily fined if they did not keep their dikes and culverts clear. We pleaded eloquently enough, but we might just as well have appealed to a brick wall. ...

    The diarist? Major-General John Fuller (Tank Corps). Gough went on to command the Fifth Army.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    The key terms in my post are perhaps 'far too much' and 'accepted' Peter.
    I can't deny that cases can, and have, been passionately made for both points of view, but my problem's primarily with the populist viewpoint, the kind of thing we learnt at school (and they still do from my own personal observations).
    Something along the lines of "Oh it was truly awful, those dreadful lazy officers, those poor downtrodden men, now read some poems that generally reinforce only one viewpoint." is about as far as most people ever seem to get on WW1. No matter how brave and effective as soldiers many of those poets may have been (something I'm fully aware of), their work is emotive literature, not quite the objective reportage it's often presented as, it seems to commonly hold so much more weight than other more conventional sources when looking at the war

    On axe-grinders - I think it's hard to deny that the ingraining of the lions/donkeys view was ably assisted by postwar politics & the depression, and a generation of later Historians that wished to make a case reflecting their own political viewpoints. (I'm better read on the English civil war, so would perhaps choose Christopher Hill as a good example of a historian from a certain period that colours almost everything with an ingrained political view - something that was far from uncommon in his generation of academics).

    As with so much history, it's a hundred shades of grey, but a monochrome presentation appears to dominate, perhaps at the expense of a more serious general evaluation?
     
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    for a contemporary "populist" viewpoint one only has to look at Blackadder series 4 and the Character of General Melchett played by Stephen Fry. If they were to be believed the British General Staff were a load of bumbling twits with no intelligence at all and I dont think this is a fair assessment of it. (I still laugh at the show though :D)
     
  8. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Ah well , we still won.
    I think off top of my head we had lowest casualties per capita of any of the major nations.
    A British Army [& other Allies] occupied Germany not the other way around.
    A General's job is to win his wars I think Bill Slim said.
     
  9. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Ah well , we still won.
    I think off top of my head we had lowest casualties per capita of any of the major nations.

    Even taking the Yanks into account??? :huh:
     
  10. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    I said
    any of the major nations

    they came in at the end.
    :D
    I've got a quote in me loft fully explaining that can't be arsed to go up there now .
    I'll let someone else look it up or I will explain myself fully tomorrow.

    EDIT: Just been arsed & checked, British casulaties were lower by population & enlistments than France, Germany & Austro-Hungry.
    Was in that John Terraine address I mentioned before.
     
  11. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    Something along the lines of "Oh it was truly awful, those dreadful lazy officers, those poor downtrodden men, now read some poems that generally reinforce only one viewpoint." is about as far as most people ever seem to get on WW1.
    I agree Alan, it's a highly emotive and misguided picture. Wrong too in that, percentage-wise, the toll was heavier amongst junior officers, up to the rank of lieut-colonel, than it was in the non-commissioned ranks.

    No matter how brave and effective as soldiers many of those poets may have been (something I'm fully aware of), their work is emotive literature, not quite the objective reportage it's often presented as, it seems to commonly hold so much more weight than other more conventional sources when looking at the war.
    Emotive is what poetry is, but it was written in anger by officers who had to lead their men to pointless slaughter. Most of it was on scraps of paper written in the trenches. Men like Sassoon and Fuller tried arguing but got nowhere.

    It is often said that generals always fight the last war and there may be much truth in it. Men like Haigh and Gough weren't fools, but they were cavalry men who had learnt their profession in the Sudan and in the South African veldt. WW1 was beyond anyone's experience. All the Germans had to do in France was sit tight whilst even better defensive lines could be constructed. Prior to all major attacks there was a heavy and prolonged barrage. But that became part of the problem in that all surprise was lost. It wasn't until November 1917 that the RA cracked this with a very major technological breakthrough and perfected the technique of predicted fire. Consequently the artillery could register its guns in advance of an attack without the preliminary bombardment that had thrown away surprise in the past. The success of Cambrai was due to the short but effective bombardment as much as to the proper use of tanks. But even here no real lessons were learnt and it was thought that trench warfare was here to stay; the subsequent Maginot and Siegfried lines, constructed in the inter-war years, although magnificent structures were really super trenches.

    would perhaps choose Christopher Hill as a good example of a historian from a certain period that colours almost everything with an ingrained political view
    Yes, but then Hill was a Marxist historian. :)
     
  12. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    Steady on! Quite a bit of revisionism here. :) You mustn't use too much 20-20 hindsight when viewing the past. LG was an outstanding PM. He simply was a one-man-band and didn't have a political party to support him after the war. Instead we had a succession of nonentities such as Bonar Law, Baldwin, and Ramsey Macdonald. Churchill, Attlee, and the Welsh Wizard, all without office, were some of the few brains left in Parliament. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with LG's visit to Germany in 1936 when at the time most of the British Press was tentatively praising Hitler. In what way did it damage LG?

    As forThat is simply not how PMs were chosen in the 1930s. The country didn't 'call them'; party grandees selected them in backroom deals. When Chamberlain fell, the Conservative party, the King, the House, the Press, and the 'country, fully expected that Halifax would become the next Prime Minister and that Churchill would serve under him. Chamberlain called Halifax and Churchill, expecting Churchill to support his choice. Churchill himself later described how he was chosen. He described how Chamberlain, recognising that he could no longer continue as Prime Minister, tried to slew the succession in favour of Halifax and asked Churchill if he would serve under him. Churchill recorded that:Halifax in effect said that he felt disqualified as a peer and suggested Churchill, to which Churchill agreed. But to return to LLoyd George, far from awaiting a call from the nation, Churchill wanted him to serve in the War Cabinet, but LG refused reluctantly, because of Chamberlain. LG would not serve with appeasers. Here is how LG ended his letter declining Churchill's offer Churchill knew this was true, but he felt that he could not abandon his loyalty to Chamberlain, his party Leader. So he ended up, initially, with two appeasers, Chamberlain and Halifax, in the War Cabinet, who after the fall of France timidly pressed for negotiations whilst LG, out of the War Cabinet, resolutely pressed for steadfastness.

    I cannot see how revisionism is confused with an exploration of the facts.

    Regarding LG's admiration for Hitler,there are adequate German and English sources,as recorded by those on the Obersalzburg and those reported in the Daily Express of the time.

    There were many British sycophants of Hitler within certain leading social and influencial families and avid press support from the likes of the Daily Mail.All drawn together by the policies introduced by the Third Reich under the establishment of law and order.Policies such as opposition parties banned in July 1933,the barbarity within the ruling Nazi Party in 1934 and the Nuremburg laws of 1935.In the case of LG,one might ask would a rational politican from a democratic background endorse such a regime.

    When Great Britain was struck by the crisis in May 1940, LG expected a call from the country,not a call to serve in any new cabinet as a mere member but as Prime Minister,a resurrection of his political career as war leader.

    LG could have easily joined WSC's cabinet at a time when WSC was anxious to establish a goverment of "all the toughs and all the talent".Using Chamberlain as an excuse possibly indicated his decline in his political standing.At the time LG also thought that Great Britain's chances in the war were dim and remarked to his secretary "I shall wait until Winston is bust".Obviously the thoughts of a man waiting on the sidelines to lead his country which never came.

    As regards, the future role of Great Britain in Europe,LG avocated a negotiated peace with Germany after the Battle of Britain and outlined this proposal to the Duke of Bedford in September 1940.

    Less than a year later,his political courage was waning and this was confirmed by a pessimistic speech on 7 May 1941. WSC responded and compared him with Petain.

    LG's last speech to the House of Commons was on February 1943 and he then faded from public life.

    Perhaps Beaverbrook's "Decline and Fall of Lloyd George" may give a further insight into Lloyd George's political career after his victorious role in the Great War.
     
  13. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    Trouble is that, with respect, the above 'facts' are somewhat awry. The Wikipedia isn't always reliable but here it is nearer the mark:
    Copied&Pasted from the Wikepidia to save me typing, and with which I concur. Lloyd George became a life-long anti-Nazi in 1937/38 and became a forceful antagonist of the appeasers. One may admire or dislike Lloyd George, that's a subjective assessment, but at least get the basic facts right.

    It is simply a grotesque distortion to describe Lloyd George as an 'appeaser', although it was widely believed in America from 1940 through press misrepresentation - and is now alive again on the Internet. The story of his letter to the Duke of Bedford appeared in 2006 in David Reynolds' From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s, page 79. Actually the book is a strung together series of eighteen of his essays. And what power was the Duke of Bedford supposed to wield?

    Churchill tried his hardest to get LG into the War Cabinet even before he became Prime Minister:
    but that was not to be, as Chamberlain would only agree that criticism of him, Chamberlain, which were being voiced by the Daily Herald and the News Chronicle should be stopped before any announcement was made of Lloyd George's inclusion.

    LG might have served his country as British Ambassador for the United States, a prestigious and important post which Churchill wanted him to take in December 1940, but that was scuppered by the false 'appeaser' label and the 'not unwilling to consider making terms with Germany' stories in the American popular press. Churchill telegraphed Roosevelt about LG's appointment to the post and Roosevelt agreed that he was an excellent choice, but finally Lloyd George had to decline it on account of ill health and age; he was then 78. Source: Finest Hour: Winston Churchill 1939-1941, by Martin Gilbert, page 952. See also John Colville's The Fringes of Power, pages 309, 311, 320/21, and 384.

    Hello? What have we here? Could it be from a forum thread with the hillarious title "Was the former Liberal leader Lloyd George a Nazi?"
    Yep, right down to the lack of spaces after the full stops.:)

    Have you ever read the 'speech'? Actually, it was an intervention in an important debate, not a public speech. Here are the relevant parts of what he actually said:
    Hardly the words of someone who wished to seek terms with Hitler.
    Well, no he didn't. His remarks related the LG's words, not to LG personally. You must bear in mind that LG sat on the opposition benches and the speeches reflect the cut and thrust of Parliament. Here is an extract of what Churchill actually said:
    The full debate is here WAR SITUATION. (Hansard, 7 May 1941)
    No, his last speech was on 11 June 1942; it was in Feb 1943 that he cast his last vote, but no speech. He was an ill man, and he died of cancer in early 1945. Here is just part of the warm tribute which Churchill paid to Lloyd George in Parliament on his death
    Source: Road to Victory: Winston S. Churchill 1941-1945 by Martin Gilbert, page 1,271 (Hansard, 28 March 1945, columns 1377-80.)
     
  14. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

  15. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

  16. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

  17. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    Trouble is that, with respect, the above 'facts' are somewhat awry. The Wikipedia isn't always reliable but here it is nearer the mark: Copied&Pasted from the Wikepidia to save me typing, and with which I concur. Lloyd George became a life-long anti-Nazi in 1937/38 and became a forceful antagonist of the appeasers. One may admire or dislike Lloyd George, that's a subjective assessment, but at least get the basic facts right.

    It is simply a grotesque distortion to describe Lloyd George as an 'appeaser', although it was widely believed in America from 1940 through press misrepresentation - and is now alive again on the Internet. The story of his letter to the Duke of Bedford appeared in 2006 in David Reynolds' From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s, page 79. Actually the book is a strung together series of eighteen of his essays. And what power was the Duke of Bedford supposed to wield?

    Churchill tried his hardest to get LG into the War Cabinet even before he became Prime Minister:but that was not to be, as Chamberlain would only agree that criticism of him, Chamberlain, which were being voiced by the Daily Herald and the News Chronicle should be stopped before any announcement was made of Lloyd George's inclusion.

    LG might have served his country as British Ambassador for the United States, a prestigious and important post which Churchill wanted him to take in December 1940, but that was scuppered by the false 'appeaser' label and the 'not unwilling to consider making terms with Germany' stories in the American popular press. Churchill telegraphed Roosevelt about LG's appointment to the post and Roosevelt agreed that he was an excellent choice, but finally Lloyd George had to decline it on account of ill health and age; he was then 78. Source: Finest Hour: Winston Churchill 1939-1941, by Martin Gilbert, page 952. See also John Colville's The Fringes of Power, pages 309, 311, 320/21, and 384.

    Hello? What have we here? Could it be from a forum thread with the hillarious title "Was the former Liberal leader Lloyd George a Nazi?"Yep, right down to the lack of spaces after the full stops.:)

    Have you ever read the 'speech'? Actually, it was an intervention in an important debate, not a public speech. Here are the relevant parts of what he actually said:Hardly the words of someone who wished to seek terms with Hitler.
    Well, no he didn't. His remarks related the LG's words, not to LG personally. You must bear in mind that LG sat on the opposition benches and the speeches reflect the cut and thrust of Parliament. Here is an extract of what Churchill actually said:The full debate is here WAR SITUATION. (Hansard, 7 May 1941)
    No, his last speech was on 11 June 1942; it was in Feb 1943 that he cast his last vote, but no speech. He was an ill man, and he died of cancer in early 1945. Here is just part of the warm tribute which Churchill paid to Lloyd George in Parliament on his deathSource: Road to Victory: Winston S. Churchill 1941-1945 by Martin Gilbert, page 1,271 (Hansard, 28 March 1945, columns 1377-80.)

    I must correct you on your assertion or is it Wikipedia's.Lloyd George visited the Obersalzburg on September 3 1936, not March 1936 as you say.His sycophantic appraisal of Hitler followed in the Daily Express on 17 September 1936 as an article entitled "I talked to Hitler"

    Can I remind you what he said of Hitler to the Daily Express:

    "He is a born leader,a magnetic dynamic personality with a single minded purpose,a resolute will and a fearless heart.He is the national leader not only in name but also in deeds.He has protected his people against the potential enemies surrounding them, and he has secured them against the constant fear of starvation.Hitler is the George Washington of Germany,the man who made his country independent of all oppressors".

    So what was said on the Obersalzburg: (I would think the comings and goings of the Berghof which would include the detail of Lloyd George's visit will now be found in the Obersalzberg Document Centre) All recorded by Paul Schmidt,Hitler's top translator and interpretater.

    Hitler enjoyed Lloyd George's visit,Hitler is described as have enjoyed a feeling of triumph as the corporal of an army defeated in the Great War in meeting the victor who now spared no words in praising National Socialism;the elimination of unemployment,the social welfare measures and the rest and leisure provided for the German workers' front.The fact that Hitler was slowly destroying the Versailles Treaty and was bringing about the Second World War was not mentioned at the meeting.

    A white haired Lloyd George stood impressed at the Berghof's picture window;"What a marvelous spot you have chosen for your leisure time here at Obersalzburg"

    Upon his return to Berchesgaden his daughter greeted him jokingly, saying "Heil Hitler" and Lloyd George answered "Yes indeed,Heil Hitler.I say that too,for he is truly a great man".

    Back in England, Lloyd George related, "There can be no doubt about Hitler's popularity,especially with the young people.The older people trust him,the younger worship him! It is not the admiration that makes him a popular leader,it is the admiration of a national leader who saved his people from utter despair and humiliation".

    Lloyd George's biographer, Kenneth Morgan concluded that his perception of Hitler was distorted by his own beliefs about the errors and injustice of the Versailles Treaty.

    On the other hand, WSC in his Gathering Storm 1948 commented "All those Englishmen who visited the German Fuhrer in those years were embarrassed or compromised.No one was more completely misled than Mr Lloyd George whose rapturous accounts of his conversation make odd reading today".

    Prewar,Lloyd George was the lone political survivor of the "council of four" who had presided over the future of Germany following the Great War.Further,in the late 1930s,Lloyd George was still a prominent force in British politics so his judgements regarding Hitler held great interest to Chamberlain and the British public.

    Eventually Chamberlain was to relate after the Munich Agreement,"I got the impression that here was a man who would be relied upon when he had given his word".Not much difference on views between the the pair.But for the both of them an error of judgement would mark the end of political careers.

    As regards the reluctance of Lloyd George to seek the higher officer.Lloyd George would have taken it if the country had called him despite statements of modesty which you refer to.Politicians who have reached high office are by their inherent traits,highly motivated to seek and to regain office again. Moreover, Lloyd George was very reluctant to stand down in 1922 even when he had minimal backing.He could not bear then to give up power and patronage and 1940 would have been no different.

    If you look at the Decline and Fall of Lloyd George by Beaverbrook,you will find that Churchill and Lloyd George did not enjoy a good working relationship when Lloyd George was the "boss".Not a good foundation and alliance to meet the challenges of 1940 despite the public statements.For example regarding Lloyd George's policy on Russia,Churchill remarked to Beaverbrook,"Tell me which way the little man (Lloyd George) is going and I am off in the opposite direction"

    Warm tributes are always paid to politicians by politicians,its the currency of the House.What matters is what is spoken and stated off the record and not made available to the public. Sometimes politicians break cover and it seems to be the norm for these people to write and publish their memoirs.I am surprised you appear to be impressed by "noble" talk.

    Now what is the nonsense you have introduced in attempting to debate Lloyd George as a Nazi?.

    From this era of history,it is incredible to now see that Lloyd George's endorsing appraisal on Hitler is now being included on a Holocaust Denial web site.

    History can be said to have a number of dimensions,one dimension being the art of omitting and distilling the facts as time elapses.No more example recently of the obituary of a lady who had met Himmler and the like as a schoolgirl on a vist to Germany with her Grandfather.The Grandfather was the 7th Marquess of Londonderry who was one of the leading Hitler sycophants in the 1930s and this fact was not revealed.However his role has not been entirely forgotten, "Making Friends with Hitler" reveals the full account of Londonderry's admiration of Hitler and the Third Reich.He was Churchill's cousin, apparently, who remarked of him as an idiot or something similar.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  18. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    Harry

    My initial reaction was to say "Yea, whatever" since there seems to be little point in going on. You really do seem to have a fixation on Lloyd George and his 'admiration' of Hitler, and somehow you seem to think he was an appeaser.

    First let me clear up one thing, 'appeasement' was a highly respected policy after WW1, very very few viewed appeasement disparagingly. You mustn't view these terms as they are now understood when you are discussing the past. As far back as 1919, the prevailing mood towards Germany was one of appeasement. Here are a few examples:

    1919 General Smuts' Messages to Empire: Problem of Peace
    And here is Churchill himself on appeasement (Let. 24 Mar 1920. in World Crisis: Aftermath xvii. 378:
    1929 J. M. Keynes in Nation & Athenæum 9 Mar 1929. 782/2:
    In 1936 Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary, (Hansard Commons 5th Ser. CCCX. 1446)
    The Times 3 Oct 1938:
    The irony here is that Lloyd George was one of the first to drop appeasement and to align himself with Churchill, but they were lone voices. (I've given full references because as far as I am aware none of the above quotes is on the Internet).

    My copy has a very detailed index, but there is no reference to Lloyd George in The Gathering Storm, do you have the page number? Be that as it may, however, Lloyd George quickly changed his mind. As of course did Churchill himself after his unfortunate speech at the Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union of 17 February 1933:
    I was almost reluctant to put that in as someone is bound to trawl the Internet and misuse it.

    What ended Neville Chamberlain's political career was the Norway fiasco, not Munich.
    Seems that others were taken in by Churchill's tribute, this is from a letter sent by his wife, Clementine
    She wrote to Churchill from Cairo on 30 March 1945 - See Speaking for Themselves - The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, page 520.

    Harry, if you are going to quote me please give it in full or in context. I was referring to what you have posted in this post, what I said was:

    Thank you, I shall try to bear these valuable points in mind. After my honour's BA I did a two year post-graduate course before getting an MA in European Studies (incidentally, my MA thesis was on The Rise of Fascism), but perhaps I missed the bit on the art of distilling and the number of dimensions. :) Yes, I do have a copy of Making Friends with Hitler; it has however only very minor references to Lloyd George.
     
  19. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    Harry

    My initial reaction was to say "Yea, whatever" since there seems to be little point in going on. You really do seem to have a fixation on Lloyd George and his 'admiration' of Hitler, and somehow you seem to think he was an appeaser.

    First let me clear up one thing, 'appeasement' was a highly respected policy after WW1, very very few viewed appeasement disparagingly. You mustn't view these terms as they are now understood when you are discussing the past. As far back as 1919, the prevailing mood towards Germany was one of appeasement. Here are a few examples:

    1919 General Smuts' Messages to Empire: Problem of Peace
    And here is Churchill himself on appeasement (Let. 24 Mar 1920. in World Crisis: Aftermath xvii. 378:

    1929 J. M. Keynes in Nation & Athenæum 9 Mar 1929. 782/2:

    In 1936 Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary, (Hansard Commons 5th Ser. CCCX. 1446)

    The Times 3 Oct 1938: The irony here is that Lloyd George was one of the first to drop appeasement and to align himself with Churchill, but they were lone voices. (I've given full references because as far as I am aware none of the above quotes is on the Internet).

    My copy has a very detailed index, but there is no reference to Lloyd George in The Gathering Storm, do you have the page number? Be that as it may, however, Lloyd George quickly changed his mind. As of course did Churchill himself after his unfortunate speech at the Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union of 17 February 1933:I was almost reluctant to put that in as someone is bound to trawl the Internet and misuse it.

    What ended Neville Chamberlain's political career was the Norway fiasco, not Munich.
    Seems that others were taken in by Churchill's tribute, this is from a letter sent by his wife, ClementineShe wrote to Churchill from Cairo on 30 March 1945 - See Speaking for Themselves - The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, page 520.

    Harry, if you are going to quote me please give it in full or in context. I was referring to what you have posted in this post, what I said was:



    Thank you, I shall try to bear these valuable points in mind. After my honour's BA I did a two year post-graduate course before getting an MA in European Studies (incidentally, my MA thesis was on The Rise of Fascism), but perhaps I missed the bit on the art of distilling and the number of dimensions. :) Yes, I do have a copy of Making Friends with Hitler; it has however only very minor references to Lloyd George.

    Peter

    After being away, I am now able to repond to your latest note.

    If I have a "fixation" with any era of history, then it is no different to other people who respond and post on this forum in the topics that may draw them.I find your comment an attempt to negate the discussion.

    My interest lies with the visit of Lloyd George to the Obersalzburg where he expressed his admiration for Adolf Hitler and the progress he had made with the Third Reich,notwithstanding that it was clear what the regime stood for.No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase that from history. I find it difficult to understand the rationality of the visit.Perhaps you might consider the motivation for the visit.


    Further, as I have explained,this admiration came from a leading politican who had proved himself as a wartime leader and still thought he had something to offer the electorate.However,Beavorbrook thought somewhat differently,recording that by 1922,the Liberal Party were not satisfied with him and and he was "a Prime Minister without a Party,"a development said to have its origin in the shame of holding power by coalition with the Conservatives.The Liberal Party now wished for an Asquith return.In Beavorbrook's view, the British electorate did not trust Lloyd George on account of his reconciliation towards Germany in the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles.This is not surprising, for the British public having gone through 4 years of a war "to end all wars" and to see Lloyd George expressing views other than penalising the Germans and making them pay reparations to a vitual bankrupt Great Britain."Appeasement" as you put was not highly respected after the Great War,especially to France and Belgium, to a foe who the British public, saw as being responsible for the war and the destruction of a large part of industrial continental western Europe.The citizens of Great Britain clearly did not to pay wholly for the cost of the war.

    The "appeasement" you refer to was better known as "conciliation" or "reconciliation" which Beaverbrook refers to and which the British public were unable to grasp.Appeasement was the term directed to those who had a policy of accomodation or admiration towards the new order in Germany from 1933 onwards.The real appeasers who gained prominence as the Third Reich unfolded would have gone further.Seeing the new order represented a bulwark against the 1917 events in Russia,they would have readily accepted the new political model here.

    Now I would not put Lloyd George in this category,you might say he was "yesterday's man".Perhaps he was entering into regression at this late period in his life when he expressed such admiration for Hitler and his policies to regenerate Germany.

    There were those such as Keynes and Smuts who advocated a diluted Treaty of Versaiiles which reflected their own indepedent thought.Beaverbrook would refer to them as "conciliators"

    Keynes was the main economic opponent to the treaty and as the chief advisor to the British Treasury delegation resigned in protest against the economic terms placed on Germany.

    Smuts was the leading opponent of the political aspects of the treaty and forecast doom for Europe and proclaimed "an impossible peace,conceived on the wrong basis.It will prove utterly unstable"

    Smuts appraisal of the Treaty would be said to be adverse but not as direct as Foch who immediately declared "This is not peace,it is an armistice for twenty years".

    Both Lloyd George and Wilson's appraisals hinged on the League of Nations to deliver peace which came to nought.

    I must confess that I cannot find the relevant page in The Gathering Storm which I referenced in good faith.(I will follow it up further) However in chasing this reference I came across a claim that WSC possessed the only anti appeasement view.So where is Lloyd George's equivalent role recorded?

    This brings me to conflicting dates to the visit of Lloyd George.One Obersalzburg reference gives the date as March 1936 and records it as a "State Visit" while the other gives the date as September 1936 which I believe is correct as recorded by Ernt Hanisch of Salzburg University who is reported as an expert in National Socialism.The other source is from Hellmut Schoner who compiled the official visits to the Berghof and the Klessheim Castle.No doubt that the Document Centre will have a comprehensive account of the comings and goings in the 1930s era.

    Regarding "Making Friends with Hitler".Of course you will not find a reference to Lloyd George.Londonderry and his coherts are the characters under scutiny as Hitler sycophants. Londonderry, from his background and political viewpoint would be the last type of person that Lloyd George would socialise and ally with.

    As to the uproar in the House of Commons in early May 1940,Chamberlain took the blame for this disasterous campaign but if there was one person equally to blame for Norway,it was WSC whose "baby" it was. WSC gave a speech in defence of Chamberlain,giving an honest appraisal of the Norwegian failure and pleading for national unity.Chamberlain's claim on Hitler's venture to Norway that "Hitler had missed the boat"came back to haunt him.However some might say his time was running out well before May 1940.Norway "Not a Gallipoli" he thought.

    Regarding the recording of history,Margaret Macmillan writes of her Grandfather,Lloyd George's involvement at Versailles."His memoirs of the Peace Conference are entertaining,frequently inaccurate,and tend to blame the French or the Americans for everything that went wrong".Just another example of the distortion that can be found in reporting the events in time.

    Still do not understand your reference to "Was the former Liberal Leader a Nazi" No linkage to me I assume.
     
  20. PeterG

    PeterG Senior Member

    Peter
    If I have a "fixation" with any era of history, then it is no different to other people who respond and post on this forum in the topics that may draw them.I find your comment an attempt to negate the discussion.
    The thread was about 'Lions led by Donkeys'. You brought up Lloyd George and said that he was an appeaser. I simply tried to point out that he wasn't.

    My interest lies with the visit of Lloyd George to the Obersalzburg where he expressed his admiration for Adolf Hitler and the progress he had made with the Third Reich,notwithstanding that it was clear what the regime stood for.No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase that from history. I find it difficult to understand the rationality of the visit.Perhaps you might consider the motivation for the visit.
    Fact finding perhaps? It was not clear what the regime stood for internationally in 1936, other than that it was a dictatorship and antiSemitic.

    I must confess that I cannot find the relevant page in The Gathering Storm which I referenced in good faith.(I will follow it up further) However in chasing this reference I came across a claim that WSC possessed the only anti appeasement view.So where is Lloyd George's equivalent role recorded?
    Well, you might try the Wikipedia as a start. I'll paste in the relevant parts, together lines you have already used but for some reason you missed out the part I have highlighted in red:In March 1936 Lloyd George met Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden and offered some public comments that were surprisingly favourable to the German dictator, expressing warm enthusiasm both for Hitler personally and for Germany's public works schemes (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany"). Despite this embarrassment, however, as the 1930s progressed Lloyd George became more clear-eyed about the Nazi threat and joined Winston Churchill, among others, in fighting the government's policy of appeasement. In the late 1930s he was sent by the British government to try to dissuade Hitler from his plans of Europe-wide expansion. In perhaps the last important parliamentary intervention of his career, which occurred during the crucial Norway Debate of May 1940, Lloyd George made a powerful speech that helped to undermine Chamberlain as Prime Minister and to pave the way for the ascendancy of Churchill as Premier.


    Regarding "Making Friends with Hitler".Of course you will not find a reference to Lloyd George.Londonderry and his coherts are the characters under scutiny as Hitler sycophants. Londonderry, from his background and political viewpoint would be the last type of person that Lloyd George would socialise and ally with.
    Agreed. But Harry, are you forgetting that you introduced Making Friends with Hitler and that I pointed out that it had nothing to do with Lloyd George?

    Still do not understand your reference to "Was the former Liberal Leader a Nazi" No linkage to me I assume.
    Your words, ipsissima verba, "At the time LG also thought that Great Britain's chances in the war were dim and remarked to his secretary "I shall wait until Winston is bust." appeared here in February 2009 Was the former Liberal leader Lloyd George a Nazi? I now see that a possible explanation is that you both copied selective texts from the Wikepedia.
     

Share This Page