Friends, a kindly old Englishman has wandered onto the White House lawn, and President Trump, as is his wont, is welcoming him with his usual charm and solicitude! Trump is clearly a great admirer of the British, and that gives the "special relationship" some durability in these troubled times, when Labourite misrule might otherwise derail it altogether. I hereby extend a hearty WaddyIsRight welcome to His Majesty!!!
Dr. Waddy from Jack : Long live the Monarchy! Rule Britannia , God Save the King! Glad to say it ; I'm an Anglophile.
ReplyDeleteYou need to move to the UK Jack.
DeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I think I noticed that President Trump restored the Churchill bust to the oval office after its deposition in favor of RFK Sr. ( at least by Biden, I believe it was Obama who sent Churchill "packing" as it were but I'm not sure who if anyone he replaced it with). I suppose that old imperialist was more than Obama could bear despite the fact that Churchill stood early and strong against perhaps history's most ambitious racial antagonist .
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: As was to be expected , since the far left never relents in this, PM Starmer demonstrates reflexive counterintuitive far left iconoclasm. Britain's "special relationship" with its erstwhile colony is an organic one I think. Churchill appeared to think so and it probably helped inform his History of the English Speaking Peoples. Supposing fate had made someone like Starmer PM in 1943. "Oh yes , if you must, do invade Fortress Europa but not from our shores. Your undisciplined and overcompensated troops would work much social dissembling in our socialist land. Eh, North Africa ought to do, yes? Besides. our noble Soviet comrades in arms will redeem Europe. "
ReplyDeleteOh yes! DJT put Churchill back on his pedestal.
ReplyDeleteYou would know a lot more than I about Churchill's Americophilia (is that a word?). Was it purely transactional/situational, or did it spring from the heart? Did it, in the end, have much effect, when FDR was determined to bring us into the war for his own reasons (of which Anglophilia may or may not have been high on the list)? Do tell, Jack!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Thanx! Well , his mother was American and though she had a somewhat "adventurous" reputation he proudly noted her nationality when he addressed our Congress.
ReplyDeleteIn his History of the English Speaking Peoples he refers to us as the "Great Republic" . I've always been fascinated by the fact that he was a Nobel Prize winning expositor of history and also a monumentally important world historical figure. So, such a compliment from was a signal honor. In that History he describes our Civil War with an eloquence which suggests him much moved by its significance and the greatness of some of its salient figures. I don't recall him therein commenting that a Civil War reunited US was ready to take on the monstrous dictatorships of the 20th century, to the world's everlasting good fortune. But he acknowledged it in his stirring prediction to Parliament in 1940 that should England fall, the New World would come to its redemption. In his History of WWII he said when he learned of America's entry into the war he thought "so, we had won after all" . For a man as freely emotionally expressive as he was there had to be profound gratitude in that thought. The relief he had to have enjoyed at that moment, after all of England's harrowing travails, was perhaps of an intensity fully understood only by one who has experienced such anxiety and terrible responsibility.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Churchill was a brave and able soldier; he fought and commanded on the WWI Western front and was admired for his courage and competence. He knew the very worst of war ; he had killed other men in close combat. So when he urged the necessity of "we will fight. . . ." he spoke with profound authority . I think he much admired America's demonstrated willingness to fight when so provoked by credible offense.
ReplyDeleteI think he saw reflected in America's political, legal and cultural history an affirmation of its English heritage
On another note, I wonder how , had he still been PM, he would have reacted to the sharp U.S. condemnation of Britain and France's assault on Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis? Would his pugnacity have manifested a response different from that of his longtime fellow , Anthony Eden? I'm glad it didn't come to that.
A fact that amazes me the more about Churchill. He recalled having as an adult conversed with people who could remember having seen bonfires celebrating the final victory over Napoleon. Yet he survived to possibly have seen the Beatles . What a life: nonpareil. I think our country graced by his admiration for it.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: From what I've read ( and for what its worth I've seen the room at Hyde Park where FDR and Churchill conversed on issues of incalculable importance) I think they shared some many amenable traits.
ReplyDeleteThey were both born to the Purple and had both been acculturated to British standards of dutiful aristocratic obligation and honorable conduct. They had hit it off well in their initial "summit" meeting on the British battleship Prince of Wales( on decks later to be sunk by the Japanese) and in Churchill's sojournes at the White House and at the Hyde Park, N.Y. Roosevelt home. They had disagreements as the war went on (Churchill wanted British General Sir Alan Brooke to command the Normandy invasion but who can gainsay Eisenhower's conduct of it?) but they agreed on the primary goal of defeating the terrible German threat to civilization.
I think Churchill was fully cognizant of the absolute necessity and justice of a productive relationship with America's Chief Executive but that they manifested genuine affection for each other. FDR knew how vital it was to have Britain as the base for the invasion of Europe and to have the British navy take much of the burden of the Battle of the Atlantic and Mediterranean off a U.S. Navy heavily engaged in the Pacific. I don't know if FDR was an Anglophile.As Assistant Secretary of the Navy in WWI he may have encountered some British disdain(?)
Dr. Waddy from Jack:I think their relationship was of critical historical importance.
ReplyDeleteWe fought Vichy France in WWII; had Halifax become PM would we have ended up fighting or otherwise opposing a similarly Nazi subjugated Britain? A Germany free of Britain's opposition would probably have conquered the Soviet Union and thereby freed up its hordes for . . . .? The MIddle East, India, China (though Japan might have resisted the latter). Strategic bombing of Germany from the U.S. was technologically impossible then. Without that burden Germany's dynamism might have yielded it nuclear weapons and flocks of jet fighters, ICBMs or intercontinental bombers.
Without Churchill: no British alliance and catastrophic superpower German dominance of most of Europe and Asia. We would probably have been heavily at war with Japan and thereby simply unable to seek the redemption of an invincible Fortress Europe. We would have had to hunker down behind the Atlantic and wait to see what designs Germany might have had on the New world.
Was FDR a consequential partner for Churchill? How might Churchill have gotten on with Willkie or Henry Wallace? Churchill was anti Marxist and Wallace might have raised his hackles. Wilkie was a middle class businessman who in the Victorian England which nurtured and informed Churchill, would not have been admitted to many higher class clubs or hotels. The aristocratic upbringing FDR and Churchill shared probably eased their cooperation in many ways (eg. mitigating American Chief of Naval Operations King's strong dislike for the Brits and his initial opposition to the convoy system).
So, I think Churchill was absolutely indispensable and FDR of an importance only slightly less vital in the alliance. For a year, Churchill saved the world by holding off the Nazi onslaught and together they finished the job (for a couple of years at least. )
Nazi Germany would never have been able to invade Great Britain. They were preparing to do so, but dropped the plan and the idea, when they realized the Royal Navy would have made short work of them. They bombed Great Britain, but the Royal Air Force shot them down three to one. So, the idea of a Nazi occupied GB is one of those "What If" type of histories, which tends to amuse people, when they weary of historical realities and facts.
DeleteI remember reading somewhere, a long time ago (but can't remember the book), where some historian had suggested that FDR was not nearly as enthusiastic about the U.S./GB alliance as Churchill was. Possibly worth looking into. As I recall, I believe Churchill's mother was American.
DeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Anonymous: It is fascinating to consider the possibility of a German invasion and if it had a chance of succeeding.
ReplyDeleteTrue, the RAF won the Battle of Britain but it was very close. In mid September , during a massive German attack when they were still concentrating on reducing the RAF to impotence, Churchill asked the Commander of the RAF where the fighter reserve was. The Commander told him, "there is none". Soon after that the Blitz , concentrating on British cities , commenced. The defeat of the RAF had almost happened when Hitler and apparently Goering, decided to try instead to destroy British morale.
Apparently the British feared the heavy losses the Navy would be expected to sustain mainly from the Luftwaffe but also some from Uboats and surface forces.Britain's Navy had for centuries been their almost invincible shield. I don't doubt that if they had tried to invade Churchill would have ordered in as much of the Navy needed to destroy the invasion fleet. If only a couple of the British battleships and cruisers had survived it would still have been enough to destroy the initial attack but what about after that? The assault might have come in waves and some of it would have been airborne. If the Brits had lost most of their army at Dunkirk , as probably would have happened had Hitler not called off his legions for a bit, they might not have been able to repel even a small German force on land As it was the Brits lost most of their armor and artillery in France.
Some very competent and knowledgeable British military leaders, including Churchill, greatly feared what they considered to be a distinctly possible German invasion. "If they land they'll be in London within the fortnight" was one comment; PM Churchill lamented
to his driver "I am so very much afraid we are too late". On the other hand, yes, many German military leaders thought it unwise but were terrified of Hitler's potentially savage reaction to disagreement.
Had the Navy been so reduced by an initial attack that it could not stand a second wave, Britain might have fallen. Of course, had Halifax become PM , Britain would soon have been subject to what Czechoslovakia and Austria suffered.
I think your prediction is very credible , but there are, I think, factors which, had they gone as they could have , would have doomed Britain.
In the event, perhaps Churchill's unexpectedly superb leadership was close to indispensable.
What sustained and boosted British morale in 1940 was the hope that the Americans would get into the war, thus ensuring that they (the Brits) would have plenty of Yankee chewing gum, nylons, chocolate, cigarettes, and coffee, (for those who were bored with tea).
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the insights, Jack! Wouldn't you say, though, that Nazi Germany came to Britain's rescue, in a sense, more than we did? What I mean is that the Germans declared war on us (not the other way around)! Be that as it may, the effect was the same.
ReplyDeleteGood point about Suez: it's very hard to imagine that the Brits would have been snubbed in the same way had Churchill still been at the helm. Arguably he hung on too long regardless, so sooner or later less statesmanlike leadership was bound to ensue.
I tend to agree with Ray (I assume it's Ray?) that a German conquest of the U.K. was never very likely. A rapprochement between Germany and Britain, however, was conceivable, and it certainly would have left the Germans in an immensely stronger position in Europe, and would, in the bargain, have drastically reduced the chances that we would ever have stuck our noses in. In that sense, Churchill's pugnacity was history-defining.
I wouldn't say the Battle of Britain was all that close. Yes, there were times when Britain was losing more planes than it could replace...but there were a lot more times when that was true of the Germans. Bottom line: the Luftwaffe, and the whole Wehrmacht, didn't have the capabilities needed to get the job done. Note that Germany didn't PREPARE before the war for major amphibious operations, or even for major U-Boat operations (nor for major heavy bombing). The Germans were geared up for a short war, and it took them a long time -- way too long -- to make the necessary adjustments.
No doubt the prospect of American intervention helped cheer up a lot of Brits, but I would think the Empire and the Navy helped even more, psychologically speaking.