Jump to content
The Education Forum

Winston Churchill and the death of Prince George, Duke of Kent


Recommended Posts

Some interesting points there, Sid. I just had a chat with someone about Curtin withstanding WWII Churchills pressure to control the OZ troops and this person told me Curtin as a consequence later was driven to illness, and a premature death. The complete correctness of this, I don't know.

The OZ soldier and the British soldier worked under different conditions re authority, going awol, and telling their superiors to go stick it where the sun don't shine etc. Yet, certainly not cowards on the battlefield.

Wiki on Curtin:

"Militant youth

Curtin was born John Joseph Curtin in Creswick in central Victoria. (His name is sometimes shown as "John Joseph Ambrose Curtin". He chose the name "Ambrose" as a Catholic confirmation name at around age 14, but this was never part of his legal name. He left the Catholic faith as a young man, and also dropped the "Joseph" from his name.)

His father was a police officer of Irish descent. He had some primary education, but by the age of twelve he was working in a factory in Melbourne. He soon became active in both the Australian Labor Party and the Victorian Socialist Party, a Marxist group. He wrote for radical and socialist newspapers as "Jack Curtin".

In 1911 Curtin was employed as secretary of the Timberworkers' Union, and during World War I he was a militant anti-conscriptionist. He was the Labor candidate for Balaclava in 1914. He was briefly imprisoned for refusing to attend a compulsory medical examination, even though he knew he would fail the exam due to his very poor eyesight. The strain of this period led him to drink heavily, a vice which blighted his career for many years. In 1917 he married Elsie Needham, the sister of a Labor Senator.

Labor politician

Curtin moved to Perth in 1918 to become editor of the Westralian Worker, the official trade union newspaper. He enjoyed the less pressured life of Western Australia and his political views gradually moderated. He stood for Parliament several times before winning the federal seat of Fremantle in 1928. He expected to be chosen as a minister in James Scullin's Labor cabinet when it was formed in 1929, but disapproval of his drinking kept him on the back bench. He lost his seat in 1931, but won it back three years later.

When Scullin resigned as Labor leader in 1935, Curtin was unexpectedly elected (by just one vote) to succeed him. The left wing and trade union group in the Caucus backed him because his better known rival, Frank Forde, had supported the economic policies of the Scullin administration. This group also made him promise to give up drinking, which he did. He made little progress against Joseph Lyons' government (which was returned to office at the 1937 election by a comfortable margin); but after Lyons' death in 1939, Labor's position improved. Curtin fell only a few seats short of winning the 1940 election.

Wartime leader

Curtin with Douglas MacArthurCurtin refused Robert Menzies' offer to form a wartime "national government," partly because he feared it would split the Labor Party. In October 1941 the two independent MPs who had been keeping the conservatives (led first by Menzies, then by Sir Arthur Fadden) in power since 1940 switched their support to Labor, and Curtin became Prime Minister.

On December 8, the Pacific War broke out. Curtin took several crucial decisions. On 26 December, the Melbourne Herald published a New Year's message from Curtin, who wrote: "[w]ithout any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom." This was received badly in Australia, the UK and US;[4] it angered Winston Churchill, and President Roosevelt said it "smacked of panic". The article nevertheless achieved the effect of drawing attention to the possibility that Australia would be invaded by Japan.

Curtin formed a close working relationship with the Allied Supreme Commander in the South West Pacific Area, General Douglas MacArthur. Curtin realised that Australia would be ignored unless it had a strong voice in Washington, and he wanted that voice to be MacArthur's. He gave control of Australian forces to MacArthur, directing Australian commanders to treat MacArthur's orders as coming from the Australian government.

The Australian government had agreed that the Australian Army's I Corps — centred on the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions — would be transferred from North Africa to the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, in the Netherlands East Indies. In February, following the fall of Singapore and the loss of the 8th Division, Churchill attempted to divert I Corps to reinforce British troops in Burma, without Australian approval. Curtin insisted that it return to Australia, although he agreed that the main body of the 6th Division could garrison Ceylon.

The Japanese threat was underlined on February 19, when Japan bombed Darwin, the first of many air raids on northern Australia.

By the end of 1942, the results of the battles of the Coral Sea, Milne Bay and on the Kokoda Track had averted the perceived threat of invasion. In August, Curtin led Labor to its greatest election victory up until that time.

Curtin also expanded the terms of the Defence Act, so that conscripted Militia soldiers could be deployed outside Australia to "such other territories in the South-west Pacific Area as the Governor-General proclaims as being territories associated with the defence of Australia."[5] This met opposition from most of Curtin's old friends on the left, and from many of his colleagues, led by Arthur Calwell. This was despite Curtin furiously opposing conscription during World War I, and again in 1939 when it was introduced by the Menzies government.

The stress of this bitter battle inside his own party took a great toll on Curtin's health, never robust even at the best of times. He suffered all his life from stress-related illnesses, and he also smoked heavily. In 1944, when he travelled to Washington and London for meetings with Roosevelt, Churcill and other Allied leaders, he already had heart disease, and in early 1945 his health deteriorated still more obviously. On July 6, 1945, at the age of 60, Curtin died: the second Australian Prime Minister to die in office within six years. He was buried at Karrakatta Cemetery in Perth. MacArthur said of Curtin that "the preservation of Australia from invasion will be his immemorial monument".

He was succeeded as Prime Minister by Frank Forde (briefly) then, after a party ballot, by Ben Chifley.

John Curtin's grave at Karrakatta Cemetery. John Curtin statue at Fremantle Town Hall. (These are familiar landmarks to me) His early death and the sentiments it aroused have given Curtin a unique place in Australian political history. Successive Labor leaders, particularly Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley, have sought to build on the Curtin tradition of "patriotic Laborism". Even some political conservatives pay at least formal homage to the Curtin legend.

Curtin is commemorated by Curtin University of Technology in Perth, John Curtin College of the Arts in Fremantle the John Curtin School of Medical Research in Canberra and the John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. On 14 August 2005, V-P Day, a bronze statue of Curtin was unveiled by Premier Geoff Gallop in front of Fremantle Town Hall."

This person highlights some of the differences in OZ and USA politics. The Labor governemnets of this era and before were heavily peopled by boilermakers, trades persons, unionists etc.

Lately, the Labor Party has become more 'professional' with Lawyers, Economists and Business people, yet the traditional Union-Labor Party association rightly remains strong, though as usual an association under attack.

Menzies was a right winger who ushered in years of conservative rule that Gough brought to an end in the early seventies, and, in doing so, the CIA supported coup occurred.

Nevertheless, the left has never been done away with on the national political scene, in the way it has in the USofA.

It's important (IMO) that USofA members understand this. We have a democracy, albeit with faults as all do, and that shows that such systems are viable as opposed to a Macarthy tinged USofA scene. One does not loose ones voice in such a system and even though we don't have a bill of rights, the individual person is generally assured a voice of dissent, and when denied it, as attempts are periodically made (see Joh Peterson's era in Queensland or Charlie Court in West OZ) do not hesitate to assume it and defend it.

We do also have our right wing racist nuts like Pauline Hanson and her associates. There are areas of concern, but generally people are interested in multiculturalism, unity, and peace.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Gary Loughran
The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

That I believe is one of the primary focuses of the topic, to dispel the historically positive legacy of Churchill. From my reading of the topic to use only the decriber opportunist, seems a little kind. :lol:

It's a great thread, thanks to all the contributions. My eyes are being opened further every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

That I believe is one of the primary focuses of the topic, to dispel the historically positive legacy of Churchill. From my reading of the topic to use only the decriber opportunist, seems a little kind. :lol:

It's a great thread, thanks to all the contributions. My eyes are being opened further every day.

- My emphasis.

I'd agree there, a political opportunist does not necessarily have an agenda apart from a personal one. Churchill used opportunities, but within a strict agenda likely in cohorts with numerous others. More like a ruthless dictator with a carefully nurtured public persona. IOW perhaps a master of disguise, who wrote his own 'history' quite simply because he could.(then)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

Of opportunities not to be missed was harnessing Pamela, his son's wife, growing sexual appetite for bedding powerful and wealthy people (Harriman being one obviously as she later married him) and passing the pillow talk back to father-in-law to enable him to better judge the mood of the president. By means of this Mati Hari strategy he was also able to apply pressure in the right amounts.

Of course, Pamela developed skills far beyond the norm for her circles and appears to have ultimately been intimate with the wealthy and powerful of the post war world. When she died, Clinton was vying with France's Mitterand to bestow upon her state honours for the services she rendered :-).

But I should imagine it takes a special type of person to foster your own son's wife to engage in such infidelities and then share the harvest of the knowledge gained with you. It is little wonder that Thatchler set him as her role model and Bliar set her as his. God help us.

But, in the last anlaysis I suppose that this is nothing less than the true mark of British aristocracy for hundreds of years -- deceit, infidelity, betrayal and all points west. Dysfunctional psychopaths the lot of them...

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

On reflection perhaps I was too hasty about Pamela Churchill. Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windson also is reputed to have possessed such skills in abundance.

Perhaps there was a "finishing school" in Geneva where these gals went to learn their knicker art?

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

John Dolva said:

Quote

It's important (IMO) that USofA members understand this. We have a democracy, albeit with faults as all do, and that shows that such systems are viable as opposed to a Macarthy tinged USofA scene. One does not loose ones voice in such a system and even though we don't have a bill of rights, the individual person is generally assured a voice of dissent, and when denied it, as attempts are periodically made (see Joh Peterson's era in Queensland or Charlie Court in West OZ) do not hesitate to assume it and defend it.

Unquote

John,

Although this is not the subject of this thread, I actually don’t think we have a functioning democracy. I can only really speak of the UK and to a lesser extent the USA but what we actually have is a parody of democracy and a rather poor attempt at it at that.

We have the right to cast a vote, to spoil a vote, or to not cast a vote at all if so desired. This right extends for the duration of about a second and a half (the time it takes to place a cross against a name) every four or five years. That, for the most part is the sole extent of our right.

The system, on the other hand, has co-opted the right to ignore our vote, singly or collectively and to electronically alter the vote so that a desired (pre-determined) outcome is achieved. Witness Votescam.

The system has the right to “choose” the individuals, that we as the people are permitted to vote into office (or not). In other words a party system is operative – not democracy in the full sense that word has come to mean. Those people standing for election on a party plank are chosen carefully by their parties and for the most part their allegiance is to the parties and not their electors.

We, as the people have a right to be heard – but the political system has gathered to itself the right to ignore our wailing (witness Blair’s disregard of the British people over Iraq).

Even as we speak, what I once took for granted as democratic rights are being hosed into non-existence by our new masters guile of the threat of terrorism.

Collusion in kidnapping, torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, the decriminalising of corporate fraud into civil law, the gradual reduction of personal liberties in favour of state sanctions (begins with “political correctness” but often that later becomes law).

And so it goes on.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims.

Try a little fuzzy logic, Len.

The answer isn't always yes OR no, black OR white, freedom OR tyranny, good OR evil, Churchill or Hitler.

Real life - and history - is more subtle. History isn't a Hollywood movie, despite the best efforts of Hollywood movie makers.

As for Irving's reputation as a historian, one would have to be very out of touch not to concur with your comment that "several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims".

So what?

If your comment had substance, you'd show where you believe he is in error in the specific extracts I cited... if you can.

Incidentally, I omitted footnotes in the extracts I cited of Churchill's War. There were several. If you wish to do some serious work debunking that specific material, Len, you can access the book in entirety as a free download from Irving's website.

I'm confident that should you find demonstrable errors, Mr Irving - as well as this forum - would like to hear about it. You might even be credited for your research in the next edition of his book (I understand a revision, with additional material, is in progress).

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims.

Try a little fuzzy logic, Len.

The answer isn't always yes OR no, black OR white, freedom OR tyranny, good OR evil, Churchill or Hitler.

I believe that you hold many views that most members of this forum would find quite disagreeable and thus you don’t fully own up to them to not appear fanatical. You express them partially but leave enough room for plausible denial. Your Holocaust denial being a prime example, you made a few scattered comments here and there but then became vague when I asked you about it. Only when after I compiled enough evidence that denial was no longer plausible did you more or less “fess up”. Even then you were so vague that Mark said something like ‘I’m not sure Sid is a Holocaust denier’.

In a similar fashion based on scattered comments I get the impression your view of Hitler is distinctly more positive than negative. Am I right or am I wrong? Can you give us a straightforward answer rather than one worthy of a politician/spin doctor/defense lawyer/PR man?

As for Irving's reputation as a historian, one would have to be very out of touch not to concur with your comment that "several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims".

So what?

I’m glad that you acknowledge that. It goes to his credibility. One could argue that citing Irving would be like citing The Sun or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concerning one of the publiher’s (Richard Mellon Scaife) pet conspiracy theories (Vince Foster’s ‘suicide’).

Freddiehamster.jpg

If your comment had substance, you'd show where you believe he is in error in the specific extracts I cited... if you can.

Incidentally, I omitted footnotes in the extracts I cited of Churchill's War. There were several. If you wish to do some serious work debunking that specific material, Len, you can access the book in entirety as a free download from Irving's website.

I'm confident that should you find demonstrable errors, Mr Irving - as well as this forum - would like to hear about it. You might even be credited for your research in the next edition of his book (I understand a revision, with additional material, is in progress).

This brings up a burden of proof issue since you are quoting a source of questionable credibility. Footnotes don’t always prove much unless one has access to the cited source. Fetzer for example cited various sources for his book and articles about the Wellstone crash but the sources often said something quite different. Another example is the very selective quotation of the captain of the Liberty on Ennes site. David Ray Griffin cited an online flight simulator manual as an authoritative source regarding FAA policy even though there is an explicit disclaimer saying otherwise.

Perhaps for those who might be so disposed you could provide a link to where the book can be downloaded.

That being said I didn’t see anything particularly damming in any of the cited passages. If we are to believe Irving:

-An ex-girlfriend of his son claims he told he was unscrupulous at a party

Where there any witnesses to this comment? Might he have been joking?

- He was at one point hostile to the US and later warmed up to the country.

Am I missing something? What’s the big deal note that even according to Irving at the time he spoke negatively of the US a president critical of England was in office.

- He favored a reduction in income tax and cutting funding for the navy.

Again so what? He said in 1925 – 6 that the UK was unlikely to go to war with Japan in the next 10 years and he was right. He said the Royal Navy should have been able to make short work of the Japanese, if the UK was bogged down in a war against Germany and her allies in Europe that might well have been the case. This of course was unforeseeable in the mid-20’s. I also doubt the decision was solely his, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer not PM. Normally advocating cutting military spending would be considered a positive thing on this forum.

- He got financial advice from Benard Baruch.

And?

Has history been too kind to Churchill? I don’t know enough to say, but so far nothing I’ve seen on this thread except for the possibility he was secretly negotiating with Hitler would make me think so. He was definitely to my right politically but I don’t think we need to demonize politicians just because we don’t agree with all their policies.

John (Simkin) wrote:

“Sir Henry Strakosch, paid the then substantial sum of £18,162 to clear his debts.”

David wrote:

“Then there were the Randlords, some of whose offspring were - incredibly some may consider - members of the Right Club.”

Citations?

Sid quoted Diana Mosley

“The first time I met him was in 1932 at the twenty-first birthday party of a friend, Barbara Hutchinson, who afterwards married Victor Rothschild. We did not get on particularly well at that first meeting, but as he was out of Parliament and had plenty of free time, he and his wife Cynthia went about a good deal, as did my husband Bryan Guinness and I, and we saw one another frequently. He used to say he had seen me at a ball at Philip Sassoon's house a few months before.”

Is this really enough to establish “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.”

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irving did make one glaring error

“When Coolidge was now defeated by Herbert Hoover…”

Uuuh excuse me but Coolidge and Hoover were both Republicans and the latter served in the former’s cabinet (though they didn’t like each other very much). Coolidge decide not to run for reelection in 1928.

"Coolidge did not seek renomination; he announced his decision to reporters, in writing, with typical terseness: "I do not choose to run for President in 1928."[126] After allowing them to take that in, Coolidge elaborated. "If I take another term, I will be in the White House till 1933 … Ten years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it—too long!"[127] In his memoirs, Coolidge explained his decision not to run: "The Presidential office takes a heavy toll of those who occupy it and those who are dear to them. While we should not refuse to spend and be spent in the service of our country, it is hazardous to attempt what we feel is beyond our strength to accomplish."[128] After leaving office, he and Grace returned to Northampton, where he wrote his memoirs. The Republicans retained the White House in 1928 in the person of Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover.

Coolidge had been lukewarm on the choice of Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."[129] Even so, Coolidge had no desire to split the party by publicly opposing the popular Commerce Secretary's nomination.[130]"

Perhaps he had other reasons not to run, he died more than 2 months before Hoover’s term expired.

See also -

http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/i__do_...run_for_pr.html

www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/cc30.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,731276,00.html

ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2006510-h

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h893.html

EDIT - Extra sources added

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn of Churchill, the more I see him as a quintessential opportunist to whom mainstream history has been excessively kind.

Yes I imagine you greatly prefer his German counter part. As for Irving several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims.

Try a little fuzzy logic, Len.

The answer isn't always yes OR no, black OR white, freedom OR tyranny, good OR evil, Churchill or Hitler.

I believe that you hold many views that most members of this forum would find quite disagreeable and thus you don’t fully own up to them to not appear fanatical. You express them partially but leave enough room for plausible denial. Your Holocaust denial being a prime example, you made a few scattered comments here and there but then became vague when I asked you about it. Only when after I compiled enough evidence that denial was no longer plausible did you more or less “fess up”. Even then you were so vague that Mark said something like ‘I’m not sure Sid is a Holocaust denier’.

In a similar fashion based on scattered comments I get the impression your view of Hitler is distinctly more positive than negative. Am I right or am I wrong? Can you give us a straightforward answer rather than one worthy of a politician/spin doctor/defense lawyer/PR man?

As for Irving's reputation as a historian, one would have to be very out of touch not to concur with your comment that "several historians have challenged the quality of his research and veracity of his claims".

So what?

I’m glad that you acknowledge that. It goes to his credibility. One could argue that citing Irving would be like citing The Sun or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concerning one of the publiher’s (Richard Mellon Scaife) pet conspiracy theories (Vince Foster’s ‘suicide’).

Freddiehamster.jpg

If your comment had substance, you'd show where you believe he is in error in the specific extracts I cited... if you can.

Incidentally, I omitted footnotes in the extracts I cited of Churchill's War. There were several. If you wish to do some serious work debunking that specific material, Len, you can access the book in entirety as a free download from Irving's website.

I'm confident that should you find demonstrable errors, Mr Irving - as well as this forum - would like to hear about it. You might even be credited for your research in the next edition of his book (I understand a revision, with additional material, is in progress).

This brings up a burden of proof issue since you are quoting a source of questionable credibility. Footnotes don’t always prove much unless one has access to the cited source. Fetzer for example cited various sources for his book and articles about the Wellstone crash but the sources often said something quite different. Another example is the very selective quotation of the captain of the Liberty on Ennes site. David Ray Griffin cited an online flight simulator manual as an authoritative source regarding FAA policy even though there is an explicit disclaimer saying otherwise.

Perhaps for those who might be so disposed you could provide a link to where the book can be downloaded.

That being said I didn’t see anything particularly damming in any of the cited passages. If we are to believe Irving:

-An ex-girlfriend of his son claims he told he was unscrupulous at a party

Where there any witnesses to this comment? Might he have been joking?

- He was at one point hostile to the US and later warmed up to the country.

Am I missing something? What’s the big deal note that even according to Irving at the time he spoke negatively of the US a president critical of England was in office.

- He favored a reduction in income tax and cutting funding for the navy.

Again so what? He said in 1925 – 6 that the UK was unlikely to go to war with Japan in the next 10 years and he was right. He said the Royal Navy should have been able to make short work of the Japanese, if the UK was bogged down in a war against Germany and her allies in Europe that might well have been the case. This of course was unforeseeable in the mid-20’s. I also doubt the decision was solely his, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer not PM. Normally advocating cutting military spending would be considered a positive thing on this forum.

- He got financial advice from Benard Baruch.

And?

Has history been too kind to Churchill? I don’t know enough to say, but so far nothing I’ve seen on this thread except for the possibility he was secretly negotiating with Hitler would make me think so. He was definitely to my right politically but I don’t think we need to demonize politicians just because we don’t agree with all their policies.

John (Simkin) wrote:

“Sir Henry Strakosch, paid the then substantial sum of £18,162 to clear his debts.”

David wrote:

“Then there were the Randlords, some of whose offspring were - incredibly some may consider - members of the Right Club.”

Citations?

Sid quoted Diana Mosley

“The first time I met him was in 1932 at the twenty-first birthday party of a friend, Barbara Hutchinson, who afterwards married Victor Rothschild. We did not get on particularly well at that first meeting, but as he was out of Parliament and had plenty of free time, he and his wife Cynthia went about a good deal, as did my husband Bryan Guinness and I, and we saw one another frequently. He used to say he had seen me at a ball at Philip Sassoon's house a few months before.”

Is this really enough to establish “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.”

Len

As a long-time observer, Len, with due respect, that post wasn't even up to your usual standard.

Maybe you need a break?

After going into a lather at the mention of Mr Irving's name, you eventually admit that the extracts I cited from one of his books were not "particularly damming" in any case. Well spotted. As you don't intend to dispute them (why should you?), one is left wondering why you belly-ache about them in the first place? We already know you don't like Mr Irving.

As for their relevance, I think you should re-read that part of the thread. A suggestion had been made that Churchill was inherently pro-American and had inherited a strong pro-American bias from his family. That may be so... but it seemed to me the citation from Churchill's War cast some doubt about that. That's all. If someone wishes to come forward with counter-evidence, they are welcome. I don't have an emotional investment in the topic. I'd rather like to learn more, from people who know more than i do. That's a major reason I spend time here.

I'll bear in mind your insightful remarks about the potential for fraudulent or inaccurate footnotes. A useful tip, Len. It had never occured to me before that footnotes might not be the equivalent of revealed truth. :D

You concluded by mentioning the extract I quoted from Diana Mosley. You muster the comment that it doesn't prove “a significant Jewish presence within the aristocracy and rather easy mixing between Jew and Gentile.”

I think you need to do some elementary logic, Len. I cited that extract because the claim had previously been made that the British ruling class, as a whole, were anti-Jewish at the time.

I merely asked for some evidence for that claim - and said that it did not seem to me self-evident the ruling class were any more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population. To bolster the case that some evidence might be necessary, I cited an extract showing that even the so-called 'far right' of British politics - at elite levels - mixed rather intimately with the Anglo-Jewish elite, at least in the early 1930s.

Shortly after the war, George Orwell wrote an essay about anti-Semitism in Britain. It is an interesting read. Not his most profound writing, I think - but an indication of common attitudes of that time, seen through the eyes of a reasonably fair-indeed and perceptive observer.

I don't feel it bears out the proposition that the British ruling classes were notoriously anti-Jewish or notrably more anti-Jewish than the rest of the population. So there. That's another reference - but I don't cite that as 'proof' either. Others, of course, may well present references that suggest otherwise. If so, I'd be interested to read them. I'd like to learn more. You, it seems, on this occasion, can't even understand the question - let alone provide a different answer.

Finally, Len, please do us both a favour and stop trying to get me to agree with your ridiculous labels for my views and beliefs. It's bad enough to be badged by someone else. Apparently, that's not enough for you. You want me to accept your badges and wear them willingly.

Well, no dice, Len. I will not agree with you that I am a "your_choice_of_term_goes_here". I won't do it.

If I ever do, you'll know I'm being blackmailed or tortured. :rolleyes:

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I thought popular retrospectives on Hitler couldn't get any sillier... here comes the Daily Mail, recycling an old story with the enthusiasm of an amnesiac.

It seems a handful of under-employed psychologists decided to get their heads around Hitler. The result: "Did Hitler unleash the Holocaust because a Jewish prostitute gave him syphilis?"

A delightfully lightweight collection of comments such as "Dr Habeeb said: "This disease can send you mad and it could be a horrible explanation for the obsession that led to the Holocaust" are rounded out by a sprinkling of ill-informed nonsense submitted by readers (along with occasional gems. such as 'Mark from Newcastle').

It's perfect modern media really, a classic of its kind. The recipe? Take a false premise (or one for which, at any rate, there is no evidence). Assemble a group of conformist windbags. Allow to simmer gently... then add a dash of affirmation from the public.

Certainly, it does amount to a strong argument for using condoms.

Why were their parents so careless?

____________

A footnote for Len.

I neglected to spoon feed you, Len, with the link to David Irving's download that you requested.

Here it is: Click This

You can even pick up a copy of 'The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor' .

No need to believe a word of it, of course! (be especially wary of the footnotes and reproductions of medical records)

Never let tiresome documentation spoil a good story!

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I thought popular retrospectives on Hitler couldn't get any sillier... here comes the Daily Mail, recycling an old story with the enthusiasm of an amnesiac.

It seems a handful of under-employed psychologists decided to get their heads around Hitler. The result: "Did Hitler unleash the Holocaust because a Jewish prostitute gave him syphilis?"

A delightfully lightweight collection of comments such as "Dr Habeeb said: "This disease can send you mad and it could be a horrible explanation for the obsession that led to the Holocaust" are rounded out by a sprinkling of ill-informed nonsense submitted by readers (along with occasional gems. such as 'Mark from Newcastle').

It's perfect modern media really, a classic of its kind. The recipe? Take a false premise (or one for which, at any rate, there is no evidence). Assemble a group of conformist windbags. Allow to simmer gently... then add a dash of affirmation from the public.

Certainly, it does amount to a strong argument for using condoms.

Why were their parents so careless?

____________

A footnote for Len.

I neglected to spoon feed you, Len, with the link to David Irving's download that you requested.

Here it is: Click This

You can even pick up a copy of 'The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor' .

No need to believe a word of it, of course! (be especially wary of the footnotes and reproductions of medical records)

Never let tiresome documentation spoil a good story!

:rolleyes::D:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irving did make one glaring error

“When Coolidge was now defeated by Herbert Hoover…”

Uuuh excuse me but Coolidge and Hoover were both Republicans and the latter served in the former’s cabinet (though they didn’t like each other very much). Coolidge decide not to run for reelection in 1928.

"Coolidge did not seek renomination; he announced his decision to reporters, in writing, with typical terseness: "I do not choose to run for President in 1928."[126] After allowing them to take that in, Coolidge elaborated. "If I take another term, I will be in the White House till 1933 … Ten years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it—too long!"[127] In his memoirs, Coolidge explained his decision not to run: "The Presidential office takes a heavy toll of those who occupy it and those who are dear to them. While we should not refuse to spend and be spent in the service of our country, it is hazardous to attempt what we feel is beyond our strength to accomplish."[128] After leaving office, he and Grace returned to Northampton, where he wrote his memoirs. The Republicans retained the White House in 1928 in the person of Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover.

Coolidge had been lukewarm on the choice of Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."[129] Even so, Coolidge had no desire to split the party by publicly opposing the popular Commerce Secretary's nomination.[130]"

Perhaps he had other reasons not to run, he died more than 2 months before Hoover’s term expired.

See also -

http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/i__do_...run_for_pr.html

www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/cc30.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,731276,00.html

ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2006510-h

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h893.html

EDIT - Extra sources added

I agree with you that this sentence needs correction.

Interesting you mention it. I thought it odd when I first read it, but assumed the author must have been referring to policy, not elections. At best it's poorly worded; at worst it's an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...