Jonathan,
You make a wonderful argument in support of the holocaust. War is, as you say, war and international law had no part in interfering with the extermination of the Jews. Hitler had a goal and felt no reason to be involved in a 'vicar's garden party'. Dave _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: Finest Hour - Action This Day I stand by my comments, Mr. McMenamin. War is war - it is not a vicar's garden party. Inter arma leges silent as the Romans used to say. Do you really believe there is any such thing as "international law" when a country believes it is fighting for it's life? I would point out that I was just commenting on Mr. McMenamin's comment on the British blockade - nothing else. But, as long as he is plugging his book, why should I not plug mine? NO LILIES OR VIOLETS - Reminiscences of a Fighter Pilot, my story of my years as a U.S. Air Force fighter pilot between 1965 and 1976 - an "interesting time", as the Chinese put it, to be an Air Force fighter pilot, is available on Amazon, both US and UK in paperback and Kindle. By the way, Mr. McMenamin, I really liked your book, BECOMING WINSTON CHURCHILL. You really write well. War has no amenities. War is the essence of violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. Admiral Jackie Fisher You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty and you cannot refine it. General William T. Sherman Jonathan Hayes _____ From: David Turrell <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sun, March 4, 2012 8:55:25 PM Subject: RE: [ChurchillChat] Re: Finest Hour - Action This Day Bravo. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 6:37 PM To: ChurchillChat Cc: [email protected] Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Finest Hour - Action This Day 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 -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
