Winston

[Guest wrinklyone]

Brig Prof Richard Holmes has written another very readable book, this time about about WSC. Naturally it covers the WW1 period, exonerating him from any blame for the land based aspect of Gallipoli, although of course he was one of the politicians who pushed so strongly for the campaign. RH does concede, though, that he has to take responsibility for the naval bombardment disaster.

But what is interesting is that when he was thrown out of his ministerial job he went to Flanders for a spell. Not long, though, because as soon as the dust settled he went back home. Lots of other guys would have liked to have been able to do that!

[kaisersoffensive]

Lots of other guys would have liked to have been able to do that!

I'm sure they would and who could have blamed them but they of course

didn't havw WSCs connections.

He genuinely believed that he could best serve his country as a politician.

Bob

[Steven Broomfield]

And thinking about it - he did. What value would Churchill's being killed at Ypres (say) been, compared to surviving and leading the country in its hour of need?

I suppose it's tasteless to suggest that some modern politicians should go to serve their country in Iraq?

[Paul Johnson]

Steve,

Not tasteless at all. Couldn't agree more and would love to see it.

Better not say too much more as I would hate this post removed.

PAUL J

[Guest wrinklyone]

Lots of other guys would have liked to have been able to do that!

I'm sure they would and who could have blamed them but they of course

didn't havw WSCs connections.

He genuinely believed that he could best serve his country as a politician.

Bob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm .. not sure about the 'genuinely'. WSC was certainly an opportunist in his early days. It's too easy to be influenced by the immeasurably great service he did later which, arguably, nobody else would have been up to. Read the book!

[Dave_59]

Winston churchill in my opinion did little as a war leader but put on a brave face in public...some of his military decisions were disastrous and personally i cant see why he is hailed as sucha hero.

dave

[Guest wrinklyone]

I would argue that he was no more perfect than the rest of us, and he certainly made some highly debatable moves early in his career. However we always want to put such people on pedestals, don't we?

But surely even putting on the brave face in WW2 provided a very valuable service from the point of view of morale. Would the outcome have been the same if he hadn't done that? We'll never know, but was there anyone else at that time who could have led us to victory? What if Halifax had had his way?

[Max]

The greatest service that Churchill did for this country was to bridge the Atlantic in our hour of need when probably no one else would have been able to.

Ordinary men like our fathers and grandfathers saved us from the Nazis.

I like Richard Holmes on the TV but I was very disappointed with "Tommy".

Andy

[Dave_59]

i was thinking about getting Tommy as it looks like a good book and R. Holmes is one of the most respected British historians. What did you not like about the book?

thanks

dave

[Max]

i was thinking about getting Tommy as it looks like a good book and R. Holmes is one of the most respected British historians. What did you not like about the book?

thanks

dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Dave

It isn't anything specific just a feeling that the whole thing had just been thrown together, a bit of a mish mash.

Andy

[bcerha]

Andy,

I agree with you, I'm two thirds of the way through it, but its taken me about three months to get there - because it hasn't really grabbed me in the same way that say "Riding the Retreat" did.

Its a good book per se, but it almost tries to cover too much...and this gives the impression that its been , as you say, a bit thrown together. I also found that whilst there are some absolutely fascinating and original quotes and insights into the daily life of the troops, he falls back on quite a lot that had appeared in some of his other earlier work . This is understandable, I suppose (as there is only so much material available) but leads to a bit of disappointment for those familiar with his other WW1 books.

I guess the explanation for this is that following on from the popularity and success of "Redcoat" (which of course has a far greater span of time and therefore presumbably (?) more material to fall back on) he sought to make "Tommy" the next one in the serise and continue the success. Thus is it more aimed at the more generalist popular historical interest readership than perhaps say the serious students of WW1.

As an aside, and this is perhaps an indication, I have already seen it remaindered for just £7.99 - a suprise for such a relatively new book!

David

[Guest wrinklyone]

I found that Riding the Retreat wasn't really my cup of tea. I agree regarding Tommies, having the feeling that much of the ground had been covered before. Clearly the Churchill book was much more carefully considered.

[Dave_59]

i suppose the great war is such a diverse subject that a historian has to focus on a small number of aspects for it to seem complete. I suppose the exception to this is a voluminous work such as Strachan's 'The First World War' which is detailled in many aspects of the conflict rather than just touching on topics.

dave

[michaeldr]

Quote from Wrinklyone: “…..about WSC. Naturally it covers the WW1 period, exonerating him from any blame for the land based aspect of Gallipoli, although of course he was one of the politicians who pushed so strongly for the campaign. RH does concede, though, that he has to take responsibility for the naval bombardment disaster.”

Thank you for bringing this book to our attention; I have not seen the RH book and I will keep an eye open for it.

One of my own recent acquisitions is ‘Gallipoli Then & Now’ by Steve Newman. His final chapter is ‘Footnote to History’ and there he makes extensive use of quotes from Sir Martin Gilbert’s book ‘In Search of Churchill’ (Harper Collins 1994).

In this latter book Gilbert made use of Admiralty archives and the Fisher papers at Lennoxlove and from these sources he gained the view that at first, it had been Fisher who was the keen promoter of the Dardanelles/Gallipoli idea and that an originally hesitant Churchill slowly came round to the idea –

“By the end of February [1915] Churchill was borne further along the swift path of the defeat of Turkey by the incredible enthusiasm of every member of Asquith’s War Council……….but Kitchener was emphatic that troops were not needed: the naval attack would do the trick.

Uneasy at this, and asking for his dissent to be recorded by the Cabinet Secretary, Churchill agreed to go ahead with the ships alone. When, a few days later, Kitchener showed no interest in providing air support in the shape of the army’s fledgling Flying Corps, Churchill stepped in with the even smaller, but keen, Naval Air Service, which he had helped to establish as an independent air fighting force four years earlier. One of the young pilots, Richard Bell Davies, was to win the Victoria Cross for rescuing a downed airman from the clutches of a Turkish Army patrol. Davies, when I found him in retirement on the south coast during my Randolph days, was as indignantly sure as many other survivors of the campaign that if only Churchill had been allowed to continue, victory might have come. Instead, the naval attack had been called off by the Admiral on the spot after several ships hit mines, and 650 men drowned, 600 of them on the French warship, the Bouvet. The naval attack on the Narrows was never renewed, even though minesweeping continued, and, in Churchill’s view, a second naval attack could have been mounted will the still considerable naval forces gathered there. But the Admiral, after first agreeing to try again, decided not to take what he regarded as too big a risk. Churchill sent several telegrams urging renewed action, but he did not have the authority to overrule the man on the spot…”

Gilbert goes on to describe a visit to Ankara and to Ataturk’s house where he met his former secretary Afet Inan. Ataturk had hoped to welcome Churchill on a visit to Turkey and in preparation for this he had collected his writings. Gilbert found in the library Ataturk’s copy of

“…the Dardanelles volume of ‘The World Crisis,’ which Churchill had published in 1923. At the point where de Robeck had refused Churchill’s request to make a second attack on the minefields, Ataturk had written in the margin a Turkish phrase,

‘History is ruthless to him who is without ruthlessness.’

But Churchill did not have the authority to order the Admiral to make the second attack. He could urge and cajole, but he could not impose action………….”

I found Gilbert’s insights interesting and I also recommend Steve Newman’s book

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Guest wrinklyone]

Now this is interesting. RH points to the initial influence over WSC by the superannuated Fisher. However he also discusses the deep discomfort Fisher felt when the project planning started to go pearshaped, as early as January 1915, culminating in his resignation on 15 May.

RH says of WSC at this time that he 'had a quick but superficial intelligence, which at times did not distinguish between the vital and the superficial'. He also seems to have had a misconception that if he said something was to be done then, in effect, it was already done. A touch of The Mikado here.

I must say that I have always felt that Sir Martin Gilbert, by nature of his position, is an apologist for WSC. Nuff sed. RH is much less reverential. Roy Jenkins' book, like his turgid biography of Gladstone, I just found very difficult to get through. A fault in me no doubt.

[michaeldr]

Nice to meet another G & S fan.

I'm not sure about MG - he is a fine historian, but yes, one has to wonder sometimes if he has not in the end got too close to his subject

Ataturk's comment does makes one think though!

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Steven Broomfield]

Coming back to the comments about WSC and WW2, all I would say is that, yes, ordinary people like my mum and dad won the war, but without WSC leading and inspiring they probably wouldn't have had the opportunity. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll add the example of the King and Queen.

And, finally, when WSC died (I was 9), the genuine outpouring of grief left a very impressionable 9-year-old in no doubt. As my garndmum said to me at the time (when she gave me a commemorative WSC Crown) "You'll never see his like again." And she was right. Tony Blair as war leader/orator......

[stevew]

I like Richard Holmes on the TV but I was very disappointed with "Tommy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great speaker and presenter............I am finding Tommy very heavy going. I am about 2/3 through and seem to have been reading it for months. I think it is what it says on the tin...........the life of the Tommy on the Western Front

[Guest wrinklyone]

I must admit to being something of a Holmes 'groupie', having heard him talk in person quite a few times. On the last occasion he spoke fluently for three quarters of an hour without a note, and then answered questions with great good humour for another half hour (until the chairman had to draw it to a close). Doesn't it make you sick when people can do that?

But seriously, don't miss any opportunity to hear him in the flesh.

The latest I heard was that he was having to bomb off to Iraq (sorry, bad choice of verb) in connection with his ongoing commitment as a senior army officer. So he ain't just an academic.

[AndyHollinger]

Winston churchill in my opinion did little as a war leader but put on a brave face in public...some of his military decisions were disastrous and personally i cant see why he is hailed as sucha hero.

dave

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read Keegan's new little bio of WSC ... it explains much about "putting on a brave face" ... I like Ed R. Murrow's quote about forming the English language into a weapon ... He was one of the few leaders at that level that could say ... "Been there, done that" when it came to facing death and fighting.

In my mind he was the supreme politician ... opportunist ... of course, but dedicated and purposeful for, in most cases, the "betterment" of mankind and the world