Yes, I brought up the point that Lloyd George was not called on by the country in its hour of need and by that I mean as a war leader.He simply was not trusted from his days of office going back to the early post war years.By 1935 his political power base had gone.He was the leader of the Liberal Party which in the 1935 election held 5 seats.Then came his visit to Germany in 1936 where he paid homage to Hitler and the new order.He was an appeaser and after his lack of judgement on the Obersalzberg he had no future.The British electorate did not trust him. A further point regarding a role in the war cabinet,Frances Stevenson, according to her diaries, made representations to find Lloyd George an appointment.Again, I would emphasise that Lloyd George and WSC were diametrically opposed to each other. Something that would not auger well for unity in the dark days of 1940. Beaverbrook's publication gives some background to the relationship at cabinet level between Lloyd George and WSC.I thought you would have said the obvious had you had an understanding of the book. "Fact finding perhaps as you say" When Lloyd George visited Hitler in September 1936,Hitler had already marched into the demilitarised Rhineland and by this date had infringed Articles 239,1,198,173,43 and 42 of the Versailles Treaty.The treaty was never commented on by Lloyd George or any other aspect of the emergence of the Third Reich. Surprised you seem unable to expand on the anti democratic policies taking place in Germany from January 1933.A country infinges treaties which were agreed upon to save it from an overall Allied occupation and you see it as "it was not clear what the regime stood for" by 1936. Regarding your assertion that Lloyd George eventually recognised the threat from Hitler and Germany.Perhaps you can give and example when Lloyd George made a speech highlighting the threat to Great Britain and Europe from his time on the Obersalzberg through to the Munich Crisis up to the outbreak of war.Did he ever state he regretted his endorsement of Hitler and the Third Reich. Lloyd George's visit was a tremendous propaganda coup for the Third Reich and Hitler.The conversations between the victor of the Great War (one of the Council of Four at Versailles to boot) and the former corporal were meticulously recorded by Dr Paul Schmidt,The interesting point about the recording of the visit and its warm praise of Hitler and the Third Reich was was that it was introduced in the trial of Ribbentrop as an example of the admirable observation of foreign visitors.The visit of the Duke of Windser was also included in the trial of Ribbentrop.It did not have a bearing on Ribbentrop's fate. I must say I have never heard of the web site,you accuse me of visiting and lifting material.The next thing you will accuse me of posting there.It is an insult to my intelligence and as I said previously, it was nonsense.Quite an assertive view in all of your posts, but your conclusion is incorrect. Lloyd George's political career and speeches are to be found throughout the internet and publications but if you wish to see the full transcript of his impressions on Hitler from his Obersalzberg visit then look at The Nazi Years.A Documentary History.Prentice- Hall pp 80-82. You will also find refrerence to WSC view on Lloyd George's admiration for Hitler in the paper "Essence of Conflict" by Bottom which he references as The Gathering Storm 1948 p 224-225 which I stated previously I am unable to find. So I have no requirement for your additional red highlighting but I would say it is incorrect.Lloyd George was never sent to Germany by the British Government althought it must be acknowledged that the Hitler regime would have probably recorded it as a "State Visit" to enhance their international credibility.In fact one Obersalzberg commentator records it as such. As I stated before,it would be interesting to see what is recorded in the Obersalzberg Document Centre as regards foreign visitors. Now as regards Londonderry,I made a reference to his grandaughter's obituary and the fact that it was mentioned that she had been in the company of Himmler but it did not reveal the full story that the reason she found herself in these circumstances was that Londonderry was one of the leading appeasers and sycophants and was visiting Germany.A case, I added of history being "omitted and distilled" which you sarcastically responded to. If you look again at the final paragraph on my post No 37,you will not find a reference to Lloyd George.
...and the Americans' debut in WWI wasn't exactly glowing...! (tho' I DO like Sergeant York when it's on the telly...) "Coop" was thought too old for the role but who could have done it better?
Yes, I brought up the point that Lloyd George was not called on by the country in its hour of need and by that I mean as a war leader.He simply was not trusted from his days of office going back to the early post war years.By 1935 his political power base had gone.He was the leader of the Liberal Party which in the 1935 election held 5 seats.Then came his visit to Germany in 1936 where he paid homage to Hitler and the new order.He was an appeaser and after his lack of judgement on the Obersalzberg he had no future.The British electorate did not trust him. This seems to be going on and on to no purpose. For the umpteenth time, Lloyd George wasn't an appeaser. First you really must get your teminology right 'Appeasement' was the term applied to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy, fully approved by the Cabinet: a policy of appeasement and rearmament. It was a Conservative government in office, and most Conservative MPs fully supported that policy. As for the public, in general they were fully behind appeasement. Lloyd George had no part in this. Incidentally, it is a bit rich you telling me not to rely on what Winston Churchill actually said about Lloyd George in Parliament yet you keep mentioning what The Dailly Express reported. You do realise that Hansard is a primary source and that all press reports, particularly the popular press, come in at the lower end of secondary sources? The British electorate did not trust him. This is completely anachronistic. The electorate didn't have any say whatsoever in who was to succeed Chamberlain. All elections were banned for the duration of the war, not least because most of the male electorate was under arms. Surprised you seem unable to expand on the anti democratic policies taking place in Germany from January 1933.A country infinges treaties which were agreed upon to save it from an overall Allied occupation and you see it as "it was not clear what the regime stood for" by 1936. An overall Allied occupation? First, the Treaty of Versailles, with which I fully agree (it runs to 948 pages, with annotations, which I have read) was, rightly in my view, imposed on Germany. Second, there never was any suggestion or threat that the whole of Germany would be occupied by the Allies. The French might have wished it, but the Americans most certainly would not have. That aside, it was not clear in 1936 that Germany was dangerously expansionist. No-one even dreamt that Hitler would be insane enough to occupy the whole of Czechslovakia or invade Poland, as a preliminary to invading Russia. No-one, not even Mussolini, took what Hitler had said in Mein Kampf seriously. Regarding your assertion that Lloyd George eventually recognised the threat from Hitler and Germany. Perhaps you can give and example when Lloyd George made a speech highlighting the threat to Great Britain and Europe from his time on the Obersalzberg through to the Munich Crisis up to the outbreak of war. It's not my assertion, it is the considered opinion of most historians. For the record, see Hansard for 1938/1939/1940. The article on Lloyd George in the Wikepedia is well balanced, you may however wish to challenge this: "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." It was Lloyd George who was a key figure in the decisive Norway debate which brought Chamberlain down and who sought to salvage Churchill from the debacle. Here I shall confine myself to primary sources; this is from the diary of John Colville, who at the time was strongly supportive of Chamberlain:Wednesday, 8 May 1940 Lloyd George probably made the most forceful speech he has made for years. I could see that he held the House spellbound as he flung his arms about and denounced the incapacity of the P.M. and the Government. He said that our promissory notes to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, and Norway were so much waste paper and he expressed the hope that Winston [Churchill] would not allow himself to be used as an air-raid shelter beneath whom the Government could hide their blunders. It was a precarious time for Churchill, see also Harold Nicolson's diary entry:30 April 1940 I go to Arlington Street for a Watching Committee [of Conservative MPs] and find a glum crowd. The general impression is that we may lose the war. Black week in the Boer War can hardly have been more depressing. They think that this will mean the fall of Chamberlain, and Lloyd George as Prime Minister. The Whips are putting it about that it is all the fault of Winston who has made another forlorn failure. That is hell. And later, he noted:1 May 1940 Buck [Lord De la Warr, a member of the Government] seems to think that if Norway is lost, the PM will have to resign. I say that what will happen is that Reynaud will resign and the PM will stay put. The Tapers and the Tadpoles [characters in Disraeli's 'Coningsby'. Both were typical Party wire-pullers] are putting it around that the whole Norwegian episode is due to Winston. ... there is a theory going round that Lloyd George may head a Coalition Cabinet. What worries people [i.e., the Westminster crowd] is that everybody asks, 'But whom would you put in Chamberlain's place?'
This seems to be going on and on to no purpose. For the umpteenth time, Lloyd George wasn't an appeaser. First you really must get your teminology right 'Appeasement' was the term applied to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy, fully approved by the Cabinet: a policy of appeasement and rearmament. It was a Conservative government in office, and most Conservative MPs fully supported that policy. As for the public, in general they were fully behind appeasement. Lloyd George had no part in this. Incidentally, it is a bit rich you telling me not to rely on what Winston Churchill actually said about Lloyd George in Parliament yet you keep mentioning what The Dailly Express reported. You do realise that Hansard is a primary source and that all press reports, particularly the popular press, come in at the lower end of secondary sources? The British electorate did not trust him. This is completely anachronistic. The electorate didn't have any say whatsoever in who was to succeed Chamberlain. All elections were banned for the duration of the war, not least because most of the male electorate was under arms. An overall Allied occupation? First, the Treaty of Versailles, with which I fully agree (it runs to 948 pages, with annotations, which I have read) was, rightly in my view, imposed on Germany. Second, there never was any suggestion or threat that the whole of Germany would be occupied by the Allies. The French might have wished it, but the Americans most certainly would not have. That aside, it was not clear in 1936 that Germany was dangerously expansionist. No-one even dreamt that Hitler would be insane enough to occupy the whole of Czechslovakia or invade Poland, as a preliminary to invading Russia. No-one, not even Mussolini, took what Hitler had said in Mein Kampf seriously. It's not my assertion, it is the considered opinion of most historians. For the record, see Hansard for 1938/1939/1940. The article on Lloyd George in the Wikepedia is well balanced, you may however wish to challenge this: "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." It was Lloyd George who was a key figure in the decisive Norway debate which brought Chamberlain down and who sought to salvage Churchill from the debacle. Here I shall confine myself to primary sources; this is from the diary of John Colville, who at the time was strongly supportive of Chamberlain:It was a precarious time for Churchill, see also Harold Nicolson's diary entry: And later, he noted: "For the umpteenth time Lloyd George wasn't an appeaser" You have now entered your lecturing mode,not an unexpected development.You maintain your opinion and I will maintain mine. Regarding your reference of my understanding of the term "Appeasement".I would say that my awareness of the policy of the various British governments in the inter war years is not deficient and is certainly equal to yours.Furthermore, I find it odd that you declared in a past post that appeasement was "respectful". Then there is Hansard and the media of reporting the business of parliament,again you are lecturing.I regard your points as an insult to my intelligence of British politics.Incidentally,the press, depending on their ownership, report politics in their favoured way,an amalgam of fact and opinion and propaganda, a far cry from Hansard.Surely you must be aware of this.The press are not the complete reliable source of information. Regarding the Daily Express,Lloyd George must have been happy for his appraisal on the Obersalzburg in September 1936 to be published.As for Hansard, the business and proceedings of parliament are recorded in tablets of stone as it were. Having said that,that would include faint praise and we do know instances of parliament being misled from statements from its membership.Now there is no doubt that the proceedings etc are accurately recorded.But when it comes to the substance of tributes being paid to fellow parliamentarians,if these tributes were fully truthful then all parliamentarians would be regarded as "paragons of virtue".If this was the case,then there would be no adverse articles or critical publications relating to the individuals.There might be public acclaim for a politician but what counts is what is reported off the record and this invariably creats interest from the researcher and historian. I am also aware of the British electoral system.There was no call for Lloyd George to resume his role as the leader of a wartime government.He had no power base and he had no cross party backing in parliament but I am sure he would have taken the job had it been within his grasp. Your diary quotes show his name under unofficial consideration You should revisit the background to the Versailles Treaty and the developments from when the Council of Four first met.Have you ever considered what the response of the Allied Powers would be if the German Government had refused to sign the treaty? It was obvious they threatened an invasion from the Rhineland into central Germany. As it was, the British naval blockade was maintained throughout the proceedings until the treaty was signed although there was some indicatiuon that it would be withdrawn as the proceedings were reaching a conclusion.Of course the Germans were appealing for the bockade to be lifted on humanity grounds. Regarding an occupation of Germany and the seizure of the enemy's capital.If "Black Jack" Pershing had had his way,he would not have stopped the march of the AEF until they had reached Berlin. But that came before the Armistice.Early in the proceedings after Germany had received printed copies of the Versailles Treaty shortly after 4 May 1919,Clemenceau when he detected a German reluctance to sign the treaty,declared to the Council of Four,"I favour a vigorous and unremitting military blow".This was agreed without hesitation by the Four.German counter proposals, chiefly on the Rhineland occupation and the magnitude of reparations dragged out the keydate for signing.Later the Germans were given the deadline of 16 June to sign the treaty or "the Allies would take the neccesary steps".Later this keydate was pushed back to 23 June 1919 and clearly the Allies became determined to resolve the impasse. Then on 20 June Foch,not as a Frenchman but as "the Supreme Allied Commander gave orders for a massive drive by 42 Divisions into central Germany" from the Rhineland ocupation zone.At the same time,the British gave notice of reinforcing the naval blockade. Erzberger of the German delegation was convinced that Germany could not afford to resume the conflict and recommended signing.Hindenburg stated he could not hold any hope of success against the Allies. On the other hand,Brockdorff-Rantzau,the leader of the German delegation thought the Allies were bluffing and resigned, causing a collapse of the German Government.Ebert the German President quickly put together another goverment and the deadline for signing the treaty was finally met at 1900 on 23 June 1919.When Clemenceau received news at 1740 that the Germans were agreeable to sign the treaty,his first response was to contact Foch in order to stand down Foch's preparations to march into central Germany. German "motivation" to sign the treaty came about from the fear that the Allies would occupy the Ruhr and then advance eastwards, which would cut Germany in two.There was also the fear that the Poles would probably attack from the east and Germany would be carved up into states (that would be lander) ,some under the Bolshevics and others under right wing dictatorships. As regards occupation of German territory related to the Versailles Treaty,in 1923 the Frech and Belgians,alone, marched into the Ruhr when Germany fell behind in reparations. Now where is the record of Lloyd George,retracting his appraisal of Hitler and the Third Reich or warning against German policy.Where is the Hansard reference.Does one exist? Coming to the uproar in the House in early May 1940,the man who trumpetted Chamberlain's demise was Leo Amery.The only reference I can find regarding a related speech at the time by Lloyd George was one shielding Churchill from criticism over Norway by stating "the the right honourable gentleman must not allow himself to be converted into an air raid shelter to keep the splinters from hitting his colleagues" (Lloyd George was referring to Chamberlain) Again what does Hansard report? The diary quotes are interesting but of course are not subject to validation and have to be read with the writer in mind. Finally as I opened,you have your opinion,I will have mine.Its as simple as that.If it came down to the proving of mathematical theorems,engineering principles and the like,there would be no issue but history is different and is interpretated differently by researchers, historians and the man in the street in addition to government official sources.
"For the umpteenth time Lloyd George wasn't an appeaser" You have now entered your lecturing mode,not an unexpected development.You maintain your opinion and I will maintain mine. You seem to go off for days mulling your replies. I think the time really has come to say yea, whatever.
For others who might be interested, a review by Lord Butler1939:The Making of the Second World War is a remarkable analysis of one fateful year of history. One is immediately struck by the immense wealth of documentation from which Mr Aster has drawn ... In fact this book is a great triumph for scholarship and accuracy and should be widely read. Sidney Aster in 1939: The Making of the Second World War on Lloyd George, page 115: "One of the most virulent critics of appeasement ..." and at page 159 on the foremost anti-appeasers " ... the eloquent voices of Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George, and Anthony Eden ..." and Maisky, the Russian Ambassador, reporting to Moscow, page 288, "On July 14th he had reported the views of Lloyd George that the 'Chamberlain clique' [Lloyd George's scornful name for the appeasers] was manoeuvering to reach an agreement with Germany."
I think the time really has come to say yea, whatever. I think this thread is wandering ever so slightly. It started as a comment about the WW1 leadership in WW1 and has now moved off to discuss one individual's attitude towards Germany 20 years later. Whilst I am enjoying the cut and thrust of the debate lads, do you not think that there has been an ever so slight deviation???
You seem to go off for days mulling your replies. I think the time really has come to say yea, whatever. Not so Mr P. I have just completed 2 x 600 mile round road trips selecting the best the weather windows for travel.Not ideal for posting serious history comment.Again you are incorrect with your assumption as you were on the "Was Lloyd George a Nazi" jibe. Have no fear Mr P, I am not likely to run away from any discussion you may put up. Incidentally, I knew what to expect when you posted your credentials which appeared to me to be the means which you intended to browbeat the discussion.It does not work Mr P.Further, I would say that you are representative of the >99% of the contributors to this forum.We are all autodidacts on a history discussion forum.
I would say that you are representative of the >99% of the contributors to this forum. Curses! My cover has been blown! You've won! Bye now.
