Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We Could Have Won WWII But We Decided Winston Was a Bridge Too Far
10 May 1947, London Zeitung
by Stanley Baldwin
There was a time in May of 1940 that we came close to giving the country over to Winston [Churchill] but we turned away from that path and awarded the Prime Minister slot to Lord Halifax. Yes, it is possible that we could have won this last war if we had chosen him but it was considered indecorous and was thought of as perhaps telegraphing our desperation to the enemy. We knew Winston had a martial background and that he wanted to make a real fight of it but the cost to our reputations would have been too high. The war was rightly called the Phoney War because we had all but lost everything by that late date. As it turned out, of course, the war only lasted less than a year anyway.
Water under the bridge. Winning isn’t everything, after all. Think of the devastation that would have followed if Winston had had his way with the military. What would have happened, I wonder: bombing cities? fire bombing? desperate refugees fleeing across the country? starvation? homelessness?
What scared me the most was the prospect of the Russians in Berlin and us still defeated anyway. All Stalin needed was a couple more years to turn the tide — and with Winston as PM that might have given him that edge. Then Stalin would have had all the countries east of the Baltic and the Adriatic and probably more.
Later that year, with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, we saw the Americans entry into the Pacific war and at least — so far — they have knocked that barbaric regime back on it heels. So, all was not lost. Much good has come from the decisions we made at that time. It’s not perfect but it’s a result that allows us to hold our heads up high these days, knowing we had performed our duties well and to the best of our abilities.
[Translated from the original German]
Published in Politics
Great summary — you are well read indeed. Thanks.
He was right about the Dardanelles and World WarII proved it as Russia (then called the USSR) bled the Germans white when they had enough support. The British Navy and their unwillingness to risk their ships made that campaign a loss long before Gallipoli. The result was the irreversible decline of England and the world we see today.
Yes, full credit to them. The reason that the Conservatives lost power after the war is because the people were disgusted with them after watching their irresolution on the buildup to war and their outright lies and deceptions on how dangerous things were becoming — including turning a blind eye to Hitler’s secret tank training and air force training in Sweden and Russia.
@seawriter and @goldwaterwoman above give great summaries of that period and the Labor Party knew two things: 1) no election would be held soon and 2) Churchill was the only Conservative leader that they could even stomach. More than that they knew that his advice was correct before the war and that he could carry out the mission better than any of the other foot draggers in the Conservative Party leadership. They got a coalition government out of it and the whole country was onboard with fire in their bellies after Churchill hit the scene.
Yes, and Churchill had to twist in the wind because he was blamed for Gallipoli and the Dardanelles fiasco. Later, he was exonerated but it was towards the end of the war and I believe the finding was kept secret for quite a while.
The famous scene in Parliament: “Speak for England Arthur !”
Arthur Greenwood became Deputy Leader of the Labour Party under Clement Attlee. Undoubtedly his most famous moment came on 2 September 1939 when, acting for an absent Attlee, he was called to respond to Neville Chamberlain‘s ambivalent speech on whether Britain would aid Poland. Preparing to respond, he was interrupted by an angry Conservative backbencher and former First Lord of the Admiralty, Leo Amery, who exclaimed “Speak for England, Arthur!”[2]
@jamesofengland is of this same mind. He does not like Churchill, blames him for the welfare state (when he was in the Liberal Party) and many other ills. He and I have argued about Churchill a couple times but that’s been a long time ago. And he hates Gingrich even more — and then there’s his feeling for Ted Cruz.
Where is James these days, I wonder? I miss him.
Wow! These were truly contentious times.
And yet: Churchill said that there never was an easier war to prevent. How do these leaders get in control of the country? How did Obama become president of the USA when he hates America so much?
Especially when it comes to Churchill as so much has been written about him. I’ve personally read about seven of his biographies and just did a search on Amazon where there are around 60. A fascinating podcast with Dr. Larry Arnn on the life of Churchill is available on the internet over on the Hillsdale Dialogues. He was given many of Churchill’s papers from Martin Gilbert who was asked by the Churchill family to be Churchill’s official biographer. I don’t know all the circumstances but it seems Gilbert was ailing and, for some reason, asked Arnn to edit his work of multiple volumes of Churchill’s papers. Hillsdale calls it The Churchill Project.
Could you be more specific?
That isn’t quite fair. You would think he would more rightly blame Herbert Asquith who was prime minister at the time and introduced the pension and social insurance. In fact, after that didn’t Churchill leave the Liberals and call himself a Constitutionalist? He hated socialism.
I didn’t read anything in that about Obama…
I want written on my tombstone: “Work in progress; so many books, so little time.”
Well, Churchill was the original compassionate conservative.
But, he did hate Socialism — I think because Liberals still live on Planet Earth and just stretch the boundaries in an organic fashion. But, Marx taught us to hate and to know we are right if we believe in Communism. No doubts are allowed — it’s very like a religion.
“Vinning ist nicht alles.”
He was also an aristocrat, to the manor born. Huge social upheavals were taking place in Britain after the boys came home from the war. They suddenly began to see their former masters as having clay feet because of unrealistic expectations about the length of WWI and the godawful blood bath most of them saw before their very eyes as they marched into combat led by those masters.
Manner?
Sorry.
Thanks, pal.
Have you read the comments?
Yes. And That’s why I’m curious what you’re referrign to.
After all, if I’m one of those you think has breathtaking ignorance of the 20th century, I wouldn’t know that I was wrong, would I?
I did read all the comments. No one has in any way blunted the point the OP so brilliantly made!
I joined Ricochet back in March 2016. In one of the first pieces I wrote I said Trump is the Napoleon of American politics. Toppling thrones, desecrating altars. He has freed us from a stifling, entrenched, encrusted old order within which no actual progress was possible, where, in order to get a place on the stage, all participants had to collude in the deception of the public, like the priests in some ancient religion who worked the levers to make the idol move and talk! They pretend to worship, but they know what the devotés do not know: it is a hoax.
Oh and spare me the smarm, like, yeah, and he’ll end up in prison and be assassinated, like Napoleon.
If that happens, it will be because,(to paraphrase Byron’s lines about Napoleon) he will be wearing the shattered links of his country’s broken chain.
This is not hero-worship–as with Churchill, known to have faults and failings, I do not need to idealize Trump to have a firm conviction that he is the man of the hour.
As with Napoleon, with Gideon, with Churchill’s electoral defeat, there may be a period of ignominy ahead. With the overwhelming hatred of the powers already ranged against Trump, and us, it is difficult to imagine otherwise.
But in the long run,
God willing!–
it will not tarnish the victory.
Self-effacing? Maybe you’re thinking of the Winston Churchill in Opposite Universe.
Maybe he was thinking of this Winston Churchill. (Anyone else on Ricochet read any of that guy’s books? My high school library had some of them, and I read a few after reading about the novelist in William Spenser Churchill’s book My Early Life.)
I think they met or corresponded. This name confusion is why Churchill went by Winston S. Churchill.
They did WSC mentioned it in My Early Life.
Clue for you: some of the comments cite references and specific historical facts while others simply make unsupported assertions that contradict these facts. Which ones do you think are more reliable?
Don’t mention the war!
I loved that one.
As the War was winding up, the Tories were voted out after having been in control for many years. VE Day was on May 8, 1945. The election was not until July 5, 1945.
Another huge distinction is that Churchill wrote truly great books. A History of the English Speaking People is a classic. I am reading his first volume on World War Two, The Gathering Storm, which lead to him receiving the Nobel Prize for Litersture in 1953.
By contrast, Trump not only refuses to read, he is not the writer of the book where he is listed as the author.
The ignorance continues! Mr. Trump has numerous books to his name. I have no idea how many of those he wrote, if any. But I do know there is not just “the book [sic] where he is listed as the author.” Facts are not Mr. Robbins’s strong suit, as this thread amply demonstrates, even when the fact checking is trivially easy to do.