World War II
- Thread starter Hollis
- Start date
Hollis
bloody furious
Nothing particularly interesting there... people attacking 'Churchillism' as defined in the article as much as the person: usual ahistorical stuff, as well as plain dubious interpretation of events.
It's actually more interesting in what it doesn't comment on than what it does. Just surprised he forgot about the Bengal famine.
Last edited:
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Fair point.
Hollis
bloody furious
A very nice debunking of Tariq Ali's book here by Andrew Robert's: if you're going to try to write history at least get your basic verifiable facts right.
What the Marxist Tariq Ali gets wrong about Winston Churchill
What the Marxist Tariq Ali gets wrong about Winston Churchill
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Verifiable facts from the ultra right wing Spectator. In an article by Andrew Roberts, aka Baron Roberts of Belgravia. From his Wikipedia page:
I'll take those facts with a hefty pinch of salt.
Hollis
bloody furious
Nice to see you engaging with his actual arguments there.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
I'm not sure why you think I should read something from a Badenoch supporting Tory in a right wing cesspit of a rag. Life's too short.
You know that for decades, the trade union movement and the left in general saw Churchill as one of the worst of the anti working class vermin. At his funeral, they couldn't even get any dockers to dip the cranes for his funeral barge and had to hire outside crane operators. But since he died, we've had years of hagiographical bollocks telling us how the Nazis would never have been beaten if not for old Winston. It's just right wing patriotic mythology.
You know that for decades, the trade union movement and the left in general saw Churchill as one of the worst of the anti working class vermin. At his funeral, they couldn't even get any dockers to dip the cranes for his funeral barge and had to hire outside crane operators. But since he died, we've had years of hagiographical bollocks telling us how the Nazis would never have been beaten if not for old Winston. It's just right wing patriotic mythology.
Hollis
bloody furious
Fwiw the way I look at him is very similar to this amazon review of Tariq Ali's book:
I'm probably as likely to read Tariq Ali's book as I am Boris Johnson's... i.e. after I've read just about everything else possible. You also have to be careful in just translating 21st century values back to the 1930s or 40s.
Hollis
bloody furious
Possibly because he happens to be a generally well-regarded historian?
Regarding the cranes - outside labour or just wanting overtime pay because it was Saturday and they didn't normally work then?- I've not been able to find anything on the outside labour.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
I saw an interview with a union convenor at the time, he was saying his members were not supporters of Churchill. So it was definitely outside labour. I've tried to find the footage today but no luck. If anyone can dig it out, it'd be appreciated. Churchill was generally seen as an enemy of the working class. It's only the hagiography and general media hero worship since he died that has elevated him to his current respected status. During his lifetime he was seen as a right bugger.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
There were plenty of other MPs - let alone real workers - who were willing to oppose the Nazi's. Even on his own level Churchill's involvement in military matters in WWII frequently led to bad results (rather like Gallipoli in WWI).
The comments of interviewees from the World at War (what was an establishment piece) show how ludicrous the hagiography that has sprung up around him saving Britain is. As does the fact that the British electorate turfed him out.
Hollis
bloody furious
That still doesn't negate the fact who was chosen in 1940 to lead, despite him being disliked by large sections of the Tory Party, nor that any serious challenge to him emerged, that he was able to hold together an a coalition including Labour, that he remained immensely popular throughout the war despite periods of reversals.
He also assembled effective structures for managing the war both at home and militarily, and perhaps most of all managed and maintained the coalition between America, Russia and Britain+Empire.
The vote in 1945, wasn't so much against him...he remained highly popular..but due the progressive social reforms in peace Labour were offering.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
He did nothing of the sort, workers did this. In fact Id argue that Chruchill and his supporters actions hindered the effectiveness of the response rather than promote it.
And considering that in 1945 he did not have to stand against either a Labour or Liberal candidate, only an independent, taking less than 75% of the vote indicates that there was a good body of people that were not in favour of him
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Yes, but they didn't. Because they weren't lords of the realm who'd been head of the Admiralty.
There's no doubt that Joe Bloggs wasn't going to lead the country into war, that's how things worked then. It's a ludicrous "what if", and I'm of the side of him being a cunty racist. The man fell into his ideal job by the accident of his birth, and we should be content that he was good at it instead of being the usual toff out of their depth.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Churchill did indeed have high approval rates as PM during the war . The samples recorded in the British Institute of Public Opnion Polls albeit with a small base are very consistent on that. However the desire for social change is also very evident from 1943 onwards with over 60% of young people and those who identified as 'lower class' wanting to 'see great change in your life after the war'. the biggest examples were fairer wages and pensions.
I think Angus Calder wrote about the war on one hand actually exposing the difference between the working class experience and the better off through evacuation, the mixing of classes in the armed forces etc but at the same time through measures like rationing, which improved working class diet, the necessary full employment during wartime, the increase in union membership and the desire to defeat fascism also showed that changes could be made. My mother who served in the airforce voted Labout in the 1945 election whilst at the same time saying that whilst Churchill was a good war leader that he was a man who belonged in past and that there was no going back to his sort of politics.
Last edited:
Hollis
bloody furious
Well quite. I don't think anyone is disputing that the country wanted change in 1945 - the proof is in the pudding. This doesn't mean that Churchill was somehow a bad or indifferent war leader, or that some other Tom, Dick or Harry was waiting in the wings and could've just stepped in and done the same job. In fact, I'd say he was quite an incredible war leader - particularly in 1940/41.
And let's not overlook appeasement in the 30s where Churchill was the lead among very few voices calling for rearmament at pace.
And let's not overlook appeasement in the 30s where Churchill was the lead among very few voices calling for rearmament at pace.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
civil defence / air raid warden on the east terrace at the valley, during an august 1944 charlton v reading match, watching out for flying bombs.
more here.
while the formal league and cup competitions were suspended during the war, there were regional leagues and the rules on loan players were fairly relaxed, and depended who was on leave from the services or based locally and available.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Didn’t know that lower/ non-league competitions went on at all. I thought every young man considered physically fit to serve would have been conscripted unless they held equally crucial jobs of value to the country (doctors, intelligence community, civil infrastructure, public service workers and whatnot). Presumably these men were not full time professional footballers but ordinary folk who played amateur football at weekends, rather than being exempt from active duty through being football players?
civil defence / air raid warden on the east terrace at the valley, during an august 1944 charlton v reading match, watching out for flying bombs.
more here.
while the formal league and cup competitions were suspended during the war, there were regional leagues and the rules on loan players were fairly relaxed, and depended who was on leave from the services or based locally and available.
Also surprised such large gatherings were allowed whilst there was any realistic risk of air raids taking place. I guess keeping morale up and providing a degree of distraction and entertainment was a fairly important objective, but the casualty count if even just enemy bomb had landed on a crowded stadium stand is too grim to contemplate.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
IWM has a page on it here.
A chunk of the army (at any one time) was in the UK on home defence and / or training new recruits - some professional footballers became army physical training instructors, for example so were often available to play at the weekend.
one of the guest players for reading in that match was matt busby, who was in the army at the time.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
My Grandparents fought, so I'll take their opinion of him over any revisionism and they all hated him.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
My maternal grandad (was 30 when WW2 broke out, so we reckon my mum, an only child, must have been quite a surprise, having been in 1948) was a spark on aircraft carriers, and apparently if they did any wiring on planes they had to go up in them before they were commissioned to prove they weren't a saboteur.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
military history isn't really my thing, but depends what you mean.
there were bits of the services who weren't exactly front line - things like engineers (not just maintenance of vehicles and guns etc but also things like bomb disposal), pay corps, service corps, transport corps. and on the 'home front' there was anti-aircraft (i don't know how much they got rotated with units serving overseas)
then people within active units who were in a role that was mostly maintenance (mum-tat's dad was a wireless mechanic in the RAF in the 1939 war, so wasn't actively flying planes or shooting / dropping bombs - i expect at the least he might have had to do guard duty at the base - he was mostly stationed in Malta)
there were also 'non combatant' servicemen - it wasn't full on conscientious objector status, but somewhere between that and full active service.
Hollis
bloody furious
One of my Grandad's was in the Army and managed to spend the war in Weston-super-Mare. I guess that would classify as a 'good war'.. god knows what he did. As it happens he didn't really have a good war - as his brother was killed in the Italian Campaign in 1943, and his dad had died in 1919 from injuries sustained in the 100 Days Offensive in 1918. Makes you think..
Last edited:
mx wcfc
Well-Known Member
Damn you! I was going to post that.
Reading isn’t far from Army HQ at Aldershot so we did quite well during the war years as no decent player based there wanted to play for Aldershit, obv.
Yes, most fit young men were in the army, but a lot of the army didn’t leave the country until D Day. My grandfather had joined up in 1938, but spent most of the war in Salisbury and Windsor, till going to France on DDay + 2.
Hollis
bloody furious
Quite an interesting summary of difference between FWW and SWW:
Conscientious objectors in the 20th century - Crime and punishment in modern Britain, c.1900 - Edexcel - GCSE History Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize.
Conscientious objectors in the 20th century - Crime and punishment in modern Britain, c.1900 - Edexcel - GCSE History Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize.
Similar threads
