Dear Mr. McMenamin, Thank you for such an elaborate and interesting reply. I feel extremely grateful and privilaged that you took the time. Certainly not more than I wanted to know since the subject and the neccessity for it to be represented correctly and to as wide an audience as possible is very important. While I served myself for 24 years I think that like most modern day soldiers and patriotic civilians we only ever hear, and repeatedly, snippets of historical information regarding previous conflicts that are popular, easily digestable for todays culture such as the Battle of Britain, Africa, the BEF withdrawal fron Dunkirk, Blitz Krieg and others. But we know there are many battles and deeds that are lesser written about and when someone like yourself goes way below the surface you will inevitably come up against those who will misrepresent the facts. It is a shame but I think it is not much more than an accident. I have virtually all but turned my back on politics and the way most people live their lives in Britain. I have no television, I do not listen to the radio and I stopped reading newspapers three years ago. I feel I have regained my own mind and no longer have others speak for me. I was once angry and bitter and not sure why. I am now what we all are, a bundle of protein calmly scrabbling around on the earths surface absorbing the sun and being pushed around by the wind. You and Mr. Hayes are undoubtably beautiful people sharing this planet with billions of other amazing people and I am so happy that our ships crossed paths. Make love not war.....I insist. Shaney
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:36:47 -0800 > Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Finest Hour - Action This Day > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > > 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.
