Gorque wrote: ↑16 Jan 2022 13:48In re Churchill The Greatest Briton unmasked"ljadw wrote: ↑15 Jan 2022 19:461 Vansittart and Drax were not going to Moscow to negotiate with the Soviets,as HMG knew very well that the Soviets could not and would not help .Not to prevent a war.Not to help Poland if there was a war .They could not do it even if they wanted and they would not want to do it even if they could .There were no negotiations between B+ F and the Soviets .Gorque wrote: ↑15 Jan 2022 15:14A nice quote, but how does it disprove the fact that Vansitartt and Drax were entrusted not only with negotiating with the Soviets in the summer of 1939, but also that he held the position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government"?ljadw wrote: ↑15 Jan 2022 09:52About Vansittart: on 9 October 1937,Chamberlain wrote in his letter to his sister Hilda that Vansittart was a man whose '' instincts were all against my policy ''Gorque wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022 21:31
Considering Churchill's past posts held and his current posting as a long-term MP, calling his opinion "irrelevant" borders upon ignorance. As far as De Gaulle is concerned, he was a forward thinking staff officer in the 30's who was also promoting, much like Guderian, the use of tanks and mechanization for the French Army. Once again, to render his opinions within the defense establishment "irrelevant," borders on ignorance.
Yes it is. What does her political leanings have to do she quoted Rydzs Smygly?? She was INTERVIEWING Rydzs Smygly and quoted what he SAID. Think about this. Did the New York Times retract her story because she misquoted Rydzs Smygly? The only person whose judgement is clouded by their political beliefs and preconceived notions is you.
There you go again Ludo, moving the goal posts again.
You stated "he did not represent HMG and was fired by Eden in 1938 and what he said were only assumptions,without any proof"
For your information, after his dismissal, Vansitarrt was given a newly created position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government" in which he served until 1941. Did you conveniently forget the bolded first part of your statement???
The source is John Charmley :Chamberlain and the Lost Peace P 34 and Note 11 on P 216.
The obvious conclusion is that after he was fired, Vansittart did not represent the views of the British Government and that his newly created position represented nothing .Unless you think that the British PM would use as his representant someone whose instincts were all against the policy of the PM.
There is even no proof that when Eden became again Foreign Secretary, he listened to/asked the opinions of Vansittart .
It was all keeping up appearances .
They went to Moscow ,wasting their time, only for political domestic reasons ,which were that Lloyd George ( who hated Chamberlain ) and Churchill demanded in the Commons that the government should send a mission to Moscow to have Russia (= the Red Army ) on its side when war broke out .If there was a possibility that this could happen, Halifax would go to Moscow . But he knew that it was only a wast of time.
2 The title from Vansittart does not mean that he had any political influence :the title was only hollow words .
Chamberlain knew very well what the opinion was of Vansittart .See his letter to his sister and it was out of the question that the Chief Diplomatic Adviser to his Majesty's Government would play a role .No one took any notion of Vansittart .
Other point : if the opposite had occurred = 1 September attack by the Soviets,17 September intervention by Hitler to prevent the Soviets from taking Danzig and West Prussia,would the situation have been different ?
NO ,of course: Drax, Vansittart and Doumenc would go to Berlin . Poland would refuse any German help and Hitler would ask what would be his reward if he intervened .
And the wokes who blamed Stalin and Chamberlain,would now blame Hitler and Chamberlain .
Already in 1938,Churchill was talking ,bombastly as usual,about the Great Alliance (B+ F and the USSR )
and Chamberlain wrote to his sister: ''the Plan of the Grand Alliance,as Winston calls it,is a very attractive idea,till you examine its practicability.From that moment its attraction vanishes .''
Source : Churchill The Greatest Briton unmasked (Nigel Knight ) P 80 Note 15 .
And, was the situation of Poland better in 1939 ? Of course not .
There was nothing Britain and France could do to prevent Hitler from attacking Poland .And there was nothing they could do to prevent Hitler from defeating Poland .
"I think it was Carlyle who wrote that “No book that will not improve by repeated readings deserves to be read at all.” That pretty much sums up Nigel Knight’s new book on Churchill. If you want to read a book on Churchill that is unreservedly negative on almost all aspects of his career, pick up Clive Ponting’s biography instead. Or even David Irving’s. Really. You’ll thank me for it.
Two-thirds of Knight’s book is devoted to World War II, which the Allies won despite Churchill’s best efforts to give the game away. Chapter 7’s title, “Dunkirk: Churchill’s Defeat,” lets you know where Knight is coming from. The last paragraph in the book tells you where he ends up:
t was Hitler who made Churchill a historical figure. If it had not been for Hitler, Churchill … would be largely forgotten today. It is because of Churchill’s role in World War II…that we remember Churchill, above all else, for Hitler’s defeat. Hitler, however, is remembered for himself.
No, I’m not making this up. That’s the last sentence in the book. What does it mean? You tell me. I can think of several explanations.
First, maybe Nigel just isn’t that good a writer. I almost didn’t make it past the first page after reading this sentence: “In 1895 Churchill endured the deaths of both his father and his childhood nurse, to whom he had been very attached as his American mother, Jennie, had ignored him.”
Of course, Jennie hadn’t ignored him and Churchill certainly wasn’t “very attached” to his father. Perhaps Knight only meant Churchill was attached to his nurse “Woomany,” and not his father as well? The sentence doesn’t say that but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and read on.
A second explanation is that he just doesn’t know that much about Hitler or the Nazis—a flaw which tends to put a Churchill biographer at a disadvantage. I confess that I didn’t make it past Chapter 3, “Disarmament: Weakening Britain’s Defence in the 1920s” before I started skimming. Hey, what’s good enough for Carlyle is good enough for me.
Knight’s thesis is that when Churchill was at the Exchequer in Baldwin’s first government from 1924 to 1929, “Churchill’s desire for disarmament in the 1920s weakened national defences just at the time when the threat from the active Nazi movement in Germany was becoming apparent.”
Give me a break. Apparent to whom? Hitler was in jail during 1924 when Churchill became Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Nazi Party was banned in Germany as a result of its failed putsch in Munich the year before. Hitler began to rebuild the party in 1925 and was so miserably unsuccessful at it over the next four years that the party received only 2.6% of the vote in the 1928 Reichstag elections good for a paltry twelve seats. By the spring of 1929, the Conservatives and Churchill were out of power. The “threat from the active Nazi movement in Germany” didn’t become apparent to anyone until 14 September 1930 when, thanks to the worldwide depression, the Nazis went from 2.6% and twelve seats to 18.3% and 107 seats, making them the second largest party in Germany."
Yup, another *ahem* authoritive source from ljadw!
Nice try ! to move the goalposts .
You have nothing to counter what Chamberlain wrote to his sister about Churchill and Vansittart ,thus you are talking about something I never said .
What Knight said about Churchill's activities before the war has nothing to do with what Chamberlain said about Vansittart and what Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals said about Churchill before the war .Do you think that Lord Derby ( a man with an enormous power in the Conservative party ) had forgotten Churchill's personal attacks against him ?When Churchill became PM ,Derby's son resigned as minister,saying that he refused to collaborate with some one who had attacked his father's honor .
And about the Drax Mission ( not the Vansittart mission ) : ''The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously because Drax did not have any power to make decisions without the approval of the government,rendering him next to powerless . ''
Source : Wiki :Reginald Drax .