English “After Munich” view of Hitler and “Peace in Our Time.”

[WJHopwood]

Seventy-five years ago (on October 21, 1938) The International
Herald Tribune carried an interesting story datelined London
which told of Chamberlain being defended by his Home Secretary
for proceeding with a British rearmament plan now that "Peace in
Our Time" with Hitler's Germany was to be "assured."
Ironically, the defense of the policy was motivated not so
much by fear of Hitler's future intent but that since Hitler was not
"immortal" that a successor might turn out to be someone with a
more "warlike" intent.

A reprint of the 1938 news story may be seen on the New York Times
website at:
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

WJH

[The Horny Goat]

Post by WJHopwood
Seventy-five years ago (on October 21, 1938) The International
Herald Tribune carried an interesting story datelined London
which told of Chamberlain being defended by his Home Secretary
for proceeding with a British rearmament plan now that "Peace in
Our Time" with Hitler's Germany was to be "assured."
Ironically, the defense of the policy was motivated not so
much by fear of Hitler's future intent but that since Hitler was not
"immortal" that a successor might turn out to be someone with a
more "warlike" intent.
A reprint of the 1938 news story may be seen on the New York Times
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

It's ironic that the phrase "Peace in our Time" which (ould have been
VERY familiar to any member of the Church of England since it's part
of one of the most familiar liturgical prayers) is in fact a plea to
God not something that the Bible or the BCP actually says mankind is
given as a divine gift.

But no question - most any Briton with any connection to the C of E
would definitely have been familiar with the phrase when he/she heard
it from Chamberlain.

[Joe keane]

Post by WJHopwood
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

In retrospect, the one better at predicting the future was Hitler.

Chamberlain did get replaced, with this guy!

"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only
when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."

Loading Image...

[Mario]

In article

Post by WJHopwood
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

In retrospect, the one better at predicting the future was
Hitler.
Chamberlain did get replaced, with this guy!
"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it
end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood
upon the ground."

http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on.jpg


He looks like a gangster...

[Bill]

Post by Joe keane

In article

Post by WJHopwood
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

In retrospect, the one better at predicting the future was
Hitler.
Chamberlain did get replaced, with this guy!
"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it
end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood
upon the ground."

http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on.jpg
He looks like a gangster...

Not quite, gangsters have style, so do aristocrats.

Notice the fit of Churchill's suit across the shoulders compared to
the man standing behind him...

The well dressed gangster with the manners of a pig is something of a
cliche in the UK.

The Kray Brothers and the Richardson Brothers being excellent examples
of this.

[Alan Meyer]

On 10/22/2013 01:17 PM, Bill wrote:
...
...

Post by Bill

Post by Mario
He looks like a gangster...

Not quite, gangsters have style, so do aristocrats.
Notice the fit of Churchill's suit across the shoulders compared to
the man standing behind him...

I was noticing the look on the face of the soldier in uniform. Is he
perhaps wondering where the muzzle of that Tommy gun is pointing?

Alan

[Bill]

Post by Alan Meyer
...
...

Post by Bill

Post by Mario
He looks like a gangster...

Not quite, gangsters have style, so do aristocrats.
Notice the fit of Churchill's suit across the shoulders compared to
the man standing behind him...

I was noticing the look on the face of the soldier in uniform. Is he
perhaps wondering where the muzzle of that Tommy gun is pointing?

Doubtful.

Churchill was very keen on modern weapons.

Remember he was the first man to use an automatic pistol in action...

In WWII he invariably carried a Colt M1911A1 in case of a kidnap
attempt.

Mind you, the king and queen habitually carried small arms in WWII
for exactly the same reason...

Her Colt pistol and his Sten are in the Imperial war Museum. (Both
could shoot, he'd been a serving officer in wartime and she was good
enough a pistol shot to get on the Bisley prize list)

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill wrote:

- snips -

Post by Bill
Mind you, the king and queen habitually carried small arms in WWII
for exactly the same reason...
Her Colt pistol and his Sten are in the Imperial war Museum.

"Is that a Sten in your trousers or are you just glad to see me?"

It seems unlikely that King George carried a Sten regularly or even much
at all. It would seem to unduly interfer with a host of kingly duties.

[Bill]

Post by Bill Shatzer
- snips -

Post by Bill
Mind you, the king and queen habitually carried small arms in WWII
for exactly the same reason...
Her Colt pistol and his Sten are in the Imperial war Museum.

"Is that a Sten in your trousers or are you just glad to see me?"
It seems unlikely that King George carried a Sten regularly or even much
at all. It would seem to unduly interfer with a host of kingly duties.

It's in a nice fitted wooden case with a couple of spare mags and a
cleaning kit and the only Sten loading tool I've ever seen...

Remember he didn't do a lot of walking...

Realistically there must have been a threat of some kind for them to
carry sidearms, you're talking about people who only carry cash to
give to charity when asked and possibly a pocket handkerchief.

For the queen to lug two and a half pounds of pistol about with her
(like Churchill she had a stock issue Colt M1911A1) without good
reason isn't really believable, and it can't be propaganda because
the existence of these weapons remained a secret until after the war.

Of course the British did overestimate the German capacity for this
sort of thing and relocated the whole of TRE away from the coast
because they feared a raid of some kind.

[s***@howardmigration.com.au]

Of course the British did overestimate the German capacity for this sort of thing and relocated the whole of TRE away from the coast because they feared a raid of some kind.

I don't think it was the Germans they were worried about. Walter Thompson's memoire (Churchill's security guard) refers to the IRA as being the real danger.

[Bill]

Post by s***@howardmigration.com.au

Of course the British did overestimate the German capacity for this sort of thing and relocated the whole of TRE away from the coast because they feared a raid of some kind.

I don't think it was the Germans they were worried about. Walter Thompson's memoire (Churchill's security guard) refers to the IRA as being the real danger.

Interesting idea.

One that makes arming the king and queen more logical.

They and their small entourage aren't going to fight off a platoon of
German parachutists, but against a gang of IRA thugs intent on murder
it'd be a reasonably even fight...

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Joe keane

In article

Post by WJHopwood
http://iht-retrospective.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/in-our-pages-october-21/?emc=edit_tnt_20131020&tntemail0=y&_r=0

In retrospect, the one better at predicting the future was
Hitler.
Chamberlain did get replaced, with this guy!
"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it
end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood
upon the ground."

http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on.jpg
He looks like a gangster...

Indeed Goebbels and the German propaganda machine used that photo to
exactly that effect.

Loading Image...

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Joe keane
http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on.jpg
He looks like a gangster...

That was an image I think he cultivated at the time. He wanted to
project an aura of toughness, and during Prohibition the Chicago
gangsters had that kind of romance attached to them, especially in
Europe where distance may have lent them a romance not appreciated by
those in more intimate contact with them.

Michael

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Joe keane
http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/events/churchill_decides_to_fight_on.jpg
He looks like a gangster...

That was an image I think he cultivated at the time. He wanted to
project an aura of toughness...

Considering his personal combat record,
I think he was entitled to act tough.

Post by Michael Emrys
and during Prohibition the Chicago
gangsters had that kind of romance attached to them, especially in
Europe where distance may have lent them a romance not appreciated by
those in more intimate contact with them.

There's a passage in Tristan Jones' war memoir
_Heart of Oak_. Jones was serving on a destroyer
in the North Atlantic, in October 1941. Near
Iceland, his ship encountered USS REUBEN JAMES and
USS KEARNY, and one of his shipmates remarked
"It must be -----ing marvelous to be as safe
as those Yanks are."

"...about a week later, we were told that both
the US ships had been sunk by U-boats...** 'The
bloody Yanks have to come in now,' said one
[older hand].

A Geordie piped up, 'Well, then we might see
some decent shooting when they get the _gangsters_
and cowboys up against Jerry."

(emphasis added)

** KEARNY was torpedoed but not sunk, and REUBEN JAMES
was torpedoed two weeks later, so Jones' recollection
is, ahem, mistaken. He also recalled serving on the
escort of PQ-17, at the sinkings of HOOD, BISMARCK,
and SCHARNHORST, and seeing Churchill, going to the
Argentia Conference on PRINCE OF WALES, steam right
through a convoy, waving at the crews.

_Heart of Oak_ is an utterly authentic account of life
in the lower decks of the wartime Royal Navy. On
"historical" matters... Like many an old salt, Jones
never let accuracy spoil a good story.

[news]

Post by WJHopwood
Seventy-five years ago (on October 21, 1938) The International
Herald Tribune carried an interesting story datelined London
which told of Chamberlain being defended by his Home Secretary
for proceeding with a British rearmament plan now that "Peace in
Our Time" with Hitler's Germany was to be "assured."
Ironically, the defense of the policy was motivated not so
much by fear of Hitler's future intent but that since Hitler was not
"immortal" that a successor might turn out to be someone with a
more "warlike" intent.

Up to that point Hitler had not been terribly aggressive. Some of those
in the government had read Hitler's writing and were aware of his long
range goals. He might have put on a facade of pacifism, but he had long
range goals that we bound to lead to war, and there is validity to the
suggestion that a successor might be more aggressive. The Nazi party was
basically a group of thugs. They fought their way to governing Germany
by brawling with their political opponents in the early days and
outright murder later on. They shunned those who did not actively
support them. They made it difficult to survive in Germany if you were
not a Nazi.