Ad hominems usually fits the ad hominer better than it fits the ad hominee.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:51 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Boy, did everybody read me wrong. Did I really muck it up that much or > does every body have their blinkers on? > > Jonathan Hayes > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Johan Arve <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sun, March 4, 2012 10:13:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ChurchillChat] Re: Finest Hour - Action This Day > > It is somewhat amusing to hear these justifications for the blockade, > since they exactly parallell those the Germans made when invading Belgium. > They've been excoriated for it ever since. > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 churchillchat+ >> [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. > -- 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.
