pp. 294-297 of WORLD CRISIS, VOL II. WSC quote is at p.297. On Mar 4, 6:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > My editor at FINEST HOUR, the quarterly journal of The Churchill > Centre, brought this to my attention and, ordinarily, I would not > bother to respond to an unnecessary lecture on something I never > implied, let alone wrote. But then I saw Mr. Downes' comment that he > did not "know what was written" and hence had no context for > appreciating how off-base Mr. Hayes' condescending comments were. And > historically inaccurate to boot. > > First, some context for Mr. Downes. I have been writing for quite some > time in the pages of FH a serial biography of Churchill titled "Action > This Day" where every quarter I spend 2,000 words describing what > Churchill was doing or saying during that season 125, 100, 75 and 50 > years ago. It is a quite pleasant assignment and I enjoy reading > speeches, letters and other documents as well as Churchill's Official > Biography to find things about his life that aren't as well known as > others. For example, Mr. Hayes' out-of-context quote was taken from > my Action This Day Winter 2012 column and in the '75 Years Ago' > segment (Winter 1936-37) of that column, I wrote of Churchill having > spent the day with his first love Pamela (Plowden) Lytton while his > wife Clementine was on a ski holiday in the Alps with their daughter > Mary. All very innocent but sweet and I found it interesting because > in research for my 2007 book on Churchill's coming of age BECOMING > WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE UNTOLD STORY OF YOUNG WINSTON AND HIS AMERICAN > MENTOR, I came across quite a few letters from Winston to Pamela which > indicated their continuing affection for one another including a > letter from Pamela in 1949 reminding Winston he had proposed to her 50 > years ago that day. Unfortunately, I missed that 1937 letter from > Winston about their spending the day together so I made up for my > earlier omission. More than you wanted to know Mr. Downes, I'm sure, > but blame it on Mr. Hayes. And, of course, I get to plug my book. > > Second, the quote from my column by Mr. Hayes is incomplete. It was > taken from the '100 Years Ago' segment (Winter, 1911-12) and is the > last line from three paragraphs I wrote about Churchill's concerns in > his new post as First Lord of the Admiralty on German naval expansion. > Two days after he and his wife were asssaulted in Belfast by a mob of > Irish Protestants, Churchill gave a speech in Glasgow on the > respective naval power of Britain and Germany where he attempted to > explain why sea power to an island nation like Britain was a > "necessity" whereas it was "more in the nature of a luxury" to a > continental power like Germany. A well-intentioned attempt by > Churchill but an unfortunate choice of words, especially as he wanted > to persuade the Germans to agree to a "naval holiday" in 1913 where > neither country would build any capital ships. The ever-sensitive > Germans did not react well. In fact, as you will read in my > forthcoming ATD Spring 2012 column, Churchill wrote a letter intended > for the Kaiser's eyes where he attempted to extract his foot from his > mouth for the "luxury fleet" comment. So, here is the last sentence > from my column of which Mr. Hayes only quotes the last part. Pay close > attention, Mr. Hayes, to my punctuation as writers typically use it > for a reason ["colon-a punctuation mark (:) used after a word > introducing a quotation, explanation...", The American Heritage > Dictionary of the American Language, 5th Edition] : > > "It could be argued that Germany's desire to have a stronger fleet was > not quite the luxury Churchill made it out to be at the time: Only six > years later, German civilians were dying as a consequence of the > British Fleet's successful blockade of German ports." > > End of sentence. End of my point, i.e., that Churchill's comment about > the German fleet being a luxury was not only undiplomatic, it was > incorrect. The characterization of that by Mr. Hayes "as though that > were something heinous" are his words. And his alone. They're not > mine. And but for Mr. Hayes mis-characterization, we would all have > been spared his little lecture. Far from my being critical of the > British, the most you can infer from that is I was being critical of > the German government for not having a navy either willing or able to > protect their own citizens from starvation during a war. Most people > would think that to be a basic governmental function. > > Third--and last--is my statement above that Mr. Hayes' comments were > "historically inaccurate". By that I was referring to his statement > that the British blockade (which was a major factor in Germany's > eventual defeat) was "perfectly proper". If by that he meant " > perfectly proper under international law in time of war", he's wrong. > You can look it up. The US strongly protested on numerous occasions > the illegality under internatonal law of the British blockade as it > applied to US ships going to neutral ports. Churchill discusses this > in some detail at pp. 294-294 of THE WORLD CRISIS, Vol II, his history > of World War I and even he concedes that "It was not always possible > to harmonize our action with the strict letter of the law. From this > arose a series of delicate and deeply perplexing discussions in which > rigid legalists across the Atlantic occupied a very strong > position." > > Michael McMenamin > > On Mar 1, 10:26 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Mr. McMenahim's article states "Only six years later, German civilians were > > dying of starvation as a consequence of the British fleet's successful > > blockade > > of German ports." as though that was something heinous. > > > Excuse me, Mr. McMenahim, but we are talking about war. Those of us who > > have > > been in combat and have seen the "fall of shot and shell" have no illusions. > > Perhaps the continuation of the blockade after the Armistice is debatable - > > and > > there are certainly arguments on either side - but the blockade before > > that > > was perfectly proper. War is very nasty, and properly so. The British > > blockade > > was completely proper and the German civilian suffering was just would > > should > > occur in modern war. > > > Sure am sorry 'bout that. I don't like war any more than you do, but at > > least, > > having been there, I don't have any illusions about it. > > > Jonathan Hayes- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
