GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (THEN JUST GREAT BRITAIN)

 

A review of Winston Churchill’s Their Finest Hour (1949)

Part II of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

                Like many people 2016 was rather ruff for me.  The loss of couple close relatives, chaos at work, and other issues forced my reading to take a huge hit.  That said I could go weeks without even touching one of my books.  I normally try to make myself at the very least read a chapter a day.  But this year that didn’t happen.  Even though I am writing this at the end of January I don’t expect to post it for a long while. (In fact, we are now in July of 2022 folks!)

                Well on with my review.  Their Finest Hour starts write where The Gathering Strom left off, the fall of Chamberlin’s government and the rise of Churchill as the Prime Minister.  I think American readers might be taken aback by how British Prime Minsters can rise and fall not by an election by just a reorganization of party.  As in the case with both David Cameron’s predecessor, Gordon Brown, and successor, Theresa May.  May is the Prime Minister currently. (Nope! Not anymore!) The executive power changes without the people having any say in it what so ever.   Yet in the United Kingdom it is the system they have and it is viewed as quite natural. 

Chamberlin stood aside for Churchill 

                It is useful trivia that Churchill was the last Prime Minister not to be the leader of party.  Chamberlin retained that for six months until he resigned for health reasons.  At first Churchill wondered if he should take it, since his government was an all talents government, but the more he thought of it allowing someone else to be the leader of the majority meant giving someone the power to bring down his government at will.  So he took the job.

                Despite being a supporter of Nevil Chamberlin and having tried to prevent his resignation, Churchill really enjoyed his new job.  This type of person Churchill was: when there was a crisis he wanted to be in the thick of it.  With the job of Prime Minister he was able to take on the challenge in the manner in which he most saw fit.

“In my long political experience I had held most of the great offices of State, but I readily admit that the post which had now fallen to me was the one I liked the best.  Power, for the sake of lording it over fellow-creatures or adding to personal pomp, is rightly judged as base.  But power in a national crisis, when a man believes he knows what orders should be given, is a blessing.  In any sphere of action there can be no comparison of number one and numbers two, three, and four.” (p. 15)

In taking command Churchill reorganized the government to be more efficient in war time.  He created a new ministry called the Minister of Defense and gave himself, as Prime Minister, the job.  This allowed all the military heads to report to a single executive authority. 

“In calling myself, with the King’s approval, Minster of Defence, I made no legal or constitutional change.  I had been careful not to define my right and duties.  I asked for no special powers either from the Crown or Parliament.  It was however, understood that I should assume the general direction of the war, subject to the support of the War Cabinet and of the House of Commons.   The key-change which occurred on my taking over was, of course, the supervision and direction of the Chiefs of the Staff Committee by a Minster of Defence with undefined powers.  As this Minster was also the Prime Minister, he had all the rights inherent in that office, including the very wide powers of selection and removal of all professional and political personages.   Thus for the first time the Chiefs of Staff Committee assumed its due and proper place in direct daily contact with the executive Head of the Government, and in accord with him had full control over the conduct of the war and the armed forces.” (p.16)

Churchill with King George VI

The first half of this book involves Great Britain and France against a revived Germany hell-bent on conquest.  They start at war against Germany alone but quickly Italy, who was already invading other counties, joins the fight as well.  Germany was prepared and the allies were not.  As a consequence France found itself pushed back into their own county.  They were beaten and at one point the Third Republic realized their end came in the way it began, with a German invasion.  Not all parties accepted this however. 

“It was clear that France was near the end of organized resistance, and a chapter in the war was now closing.  The French might by some means continue the struggle.  There might even be two French Governments, one which made peace, and one which organized resistance from the French colonies, carrying on the war at sea through the French Fleet and in France through guerrillas  It was too early to tell.  Though for a period we might still have to send some support to France, we must now concentrate our main efforts on the defence of our island.” (p. 159-60)

There a couple of things about the fall of France that I found fascinating.  The first was the state of the French Navy, where the main capital ships sat in the water for duration of the war officially in the service of the Vichy puppet government.  The second was the fact serious consideration was given to the idea of combining the United Kingdom and the French Third Republic would combine into one great supernation.  Basically reviving the old Plantagenet claim for King George VI. 

“He hoped with us that this solemn pledge of union and brotherhood between the two nations and empires would give the struggling French Premier the means to carry his Government to Africa with all possible forces and order the French Navy to sail for harbours outside impending German control.” (p.209)

King Edward III's old French claim revived for the 20th century

The second part of the book is “when England stood alone” against the German militarily might.  This part you get a view of Winston Churchill: war leader.  Giving orders to and receiving reports from his subordinates.   He also would write letters back and forth to President Roosevelt.  As time went on Great Britain would get pounded with bombs.  Churchill writes with admiration about the people partially the public servants who continued with their duties in the face of danger.  

“It will always add to the renown of the British Parliament that its Members continued to sit and discharge their duties through all this period.  The Commons are very touchy in such matters, and it would have been easy to misjudge their mood.  When one Chamber was damaged, they moved to another, and I did my utmost to persuade them to follow wise advice with good grace.  Their migrations will be recorded in due course.  In short, everyone behaved with sense and dignity.  It was also lucky that when the Chamber was blown to pieces a few months later, it was by night and not by day, when empty and not full.  With our mastery of the daylight raids there came a considerable relief in personal convenience.  But during the first few months I was never free from anxiety about the safety of the Members.  After all, a free sovereign Parliament, fairly chosen by universal suffrage, able to turn out the Government any day, but proud to uphold it in the darkest days, was one of the points which were in dispute with the enemy.  Parliament won.”  (p. 356-7)

Hitler having conquered France

The land lease was historically one of the most important acts that President Roosevelt ever did.  It gave important aid to a past and future ally at a difficult time.   Without the British might of run out of capital before they ran out of bombs.

“Up till November, 1940, we had paid for everything we had received.  We had already sold $335,000,000 worth of American shares requisitioned for sterling from private owners in Britain.  We had paid out over $4,500,000,000 in cash.  We had only two thousand millions left, the greater part in investments, many of which were not readily marketable.  It was plain that we could not go on any longer in this way.  Even if we divested ourselves of all our gold and foreign assets, we could not pay for half we had ordered, and the extension of the war made it necessary for us to have ten times as much.  We must keep something in hand to carry on our daily affairs.” (p. 557-8)

By the close of the year the British people had prevailed.  They were headed into the year 1941 with a continued great challenge in front of them.  They would get help from the nations of their Empire and throughout the year the United States would provide arms before joining the conflict at years end.

{Video is from the 2017 film The Darkest Hour}

Roe V Wade 2022 and 2024

 

To everyone who cares about right of women to have control of their own bodies:

We are on the defensive make no mistake about it.  As of yesterday morning, half the women in the United States will shortly lose control of their basic anatomy.  I live in Maine, one of the “safe states” where women still have that right.  I would prefer the term “Free State.”  Once we were called a free state for a very different reason.  I will not say the two are comparable because the evil that was fought before was clearly worse.  However, if someone is homeless and eating in a soup kitchen saying to that person “at least you’re not starving” doesn’t really do anything to cure the person’s homelessness does it?  There have been worse things to happen in this country but this is the problem we are facing right now.  So please don’t confuse the analogy.

In 1858 Lincoln said,

 

A house divided against itself, cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

 

I feel this is true for the nation today.  At the moment women have the right to choose a medical abortion in 37 states and will most likely lose it in other states within the coming months.  In the short term this will lead to a nation that is only half free. I don’t think that is going to hold. It is either going to become all of one or all of the other and that will be determined in the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

 To put it simply the Republican Party needs to be punished and needs to be punished severely for if they are not bad things will happen.  If they are only slightly damaged or even empowered, they will go for more.  A Republican controlled Congress with a Republican President WILL pass a national law banning choice everywhere!  Then they will come after contraception, marriage equality, and anything else you can think.  

So, to simplify these are the three possible outcomes.

 1)      Democrats win in the fall and win in 2024.  We can begin to fix this right away, with solid majorities in both Houses of Congress and put Roe into statutory law and maybe we can even work on expanding the Supreme Court to get this lawless court under control.

2)      Republicans take control of Congress in the fall but the Democrats prevail in 2024.  This means gridlock for two years while half the nation’s women are still living in Anti-Choice sections of the United States. Reform begins in 2025 we have recovered all that was lost by the end of the decade.   

3)      Republicans win in the fall and win in 2024.  By the end of the decade choice will be dead in America and it will not be revived for a minimum of three generations. Other rights will be on the defensive and most time will be spent on defending those.  With any luck women three generations from now will win back the right that were once taken for granted by their great-grandmothers.  

 

Belichick vs Brady

 

              For twenty years we who are fans of the New England Patriots were blessed to have both the greatest Head Coach and Quarterback combination of all time in Bill Belichick and Tom Brady.  With the unprecedented success in winning six Super Bowls in nine trips to the big game also came a question: which one was more important?  

       Celtics President Danny Anige has pointed out the stupidity of this debate.  He stated that people don’t generally ask if Red Auerbach or Bill Russell was more important racking up all those earlier Celtic Championships. Yet the debate was often used as a form of attack when anyone wanted to downplay the accomplishments of one or the other.  “Belichick isn’t that great of a coach, he just has Brady.  Look at his record with the Browns anybody could look good with Brady as their quarterback.”  or “Brady isn’t that great he just had Belichick all those years.  If Peyton Manning had Belichick as his couch how many do you think he could have won?” 

Mutual admiration

                        When asked the two normally will give credit to the other one.  Belichick will often utter the line, “Players win games, not coaches” and Brady will say that he owes Belichick for teaching him everything he knows. 

                   With Brady leaving the Patriots for the Buccaneers this year and leading them to the Super Bowl this Sunday the debate is now tipping in Brady’s favor and will continue to do so if they win.  If the Bucs lose with Brady performing well but fail to keep up with Mahomes’s offensive onslaught, then it might swing back to Belichick with people remembering how the Patriots defense handled the Chiefs in the AFC Championship game two years ago.    

       In my own view the two compliment each other they both bring a certain level of success to the team and together they augment each other's greatness.  I have watched every game that the two were in together and saw nine trips to the Super Bowl.  My take of the six victories three of them both men were equally responsible for, two Belichick was more responsible for, and one Brady was primary.  Of the three losses one was more Belichick’s fault, and two were Brady’s.  Let us take a look at each of these to explain why.

Super Bowl 36
2001 New England Patriots
2/3/2002
More responsible for win: Belichick

    The memory that most have about Super Bowl 36 is Brady in the final minutes of the game driving his team down the field to set up the winning field goal with no time remaining. It had been a hell of a year.  The franchise quarterback, Drew Bledsoe had been injured in the first game following a return to football after the 9/11 attacks.  Taking over the backup quarterback, a sixth round draft pick named Tom Brady, showed some promise by almost winning that game.  The Patriots went on a Cinderella run, a team that never won the Super Bowl before was going to become one of the positive stories about the year 2001. To his critics Brady was a game manager who made quick short passes and whose long ball was questionable at best.  However he was effective and supported by a shutdown defense, Belichick elected to keep him in even after Bledsoe was healthy to return.  Although Bledsoe got to come in and have some heroics in the AFC Championship game after Brady was hurt, Brady was still selected to start the Super Bowl after some debate.

Moment of Victory!

    I have seen Super Bowl 36 more than any other.  I would do a Patriots victory marathon every time they got back to the Super Bowl.  One of the most shocking things to people who go back and watch this is just how badly Tom Brady played. 

    He may have been selected MVP but you would hardly see why watching the first 50+ minutes of the game.  During this time the Patriots offense was like a car with a poor starter.  They were repeatedly three and out, and when they actually got a first down it was normally followed by a punt three plays later.  I think they may have had one drive in the first quarter where they had two first downs but I am not sure. The story of that Super Bowl was not its offense but its defense.

    The Rams of this era were known as “The Greatest Show on Turf” but the Pats defense, led by the likes of Ty Law, Richard Seymore, and Lawyer Malloy, overwhelmed them.  Kurt Warner was able to move his offense up and down the field but were prevented from scoring with forced stops and turnovers.  As the first quarter came to a close the Rams offensive juggernaut was limited to just two field goal attempts, and one of them was missed. 

    In the second quarter the Pats offense was not providing much assistance while the defense was doing all that it could.  Not only did they hold the Rams scoreless but Ty Law intercepted Warner for a pick-six to put the Patriots on top with a 7-3 lead. As the quarter came to an end Antwan Harris forced the Rams to fumble in their own territory and the Pats were able to recover.  Starting in their opponent’s territory Brady was able to drive it down the field and complete his first touchdown pass to David Patten.  The first half ended with the Pats up 14-3.

    The third quarter was a replay of what the earlier game had been with the Rams moving it up the field with no result but still holding on to the ball longer than the Patriots. Otis Smith intercepted a pass and brought it back to the Rams 30.  Brady and the offense went three and out again, so the Patriots settled for a field goal. 17-3.

    By the fourth quarter the defense of the Patriots started to show signs of exhaustion but they weren’t done yet.  With the Rams at the Pats goal line about to score, the Patriots forced another fumble and Tebucky Jones ran it all the way back for another 97 yards touchdown to put the game out of reach for the Rams.  Or would have if there hadn’t been a penalty for holding on the play.  The Rams now had first and goal from the goal line and were able to punch it in to put them down by a score.  When the Pats had the ball back they did a quick three and out and it went back to the Rams again.  The Rams marched down the field and tied the game with a 1:30 left in the quarter.  The Rams comeback win seemed inevitable.  The way the Patriots were playing it didn’t seem like they had it in them to win by way of their offense.   But then they did.  In a now legendary drive Brady drove it up the field to set up a game winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri.

    Brady deserves credit for those last minute plays to secure the victory but the lion’s share of credit for that win belongs to Belichick.   

Super Bowl 38

2003 New England Patriots

2/1/2004

Both evenly responsible for win

     If I were a sports documentarian I think a good documentary would be about the 2003 New England Patriots and the 2003 NFL season as a whole.  After the Bucs beat the Raiders in Super Bowl 37 there was a good deal of discussion about how the era of great quarterbacks was over and from now on it was going to be strong defenses with okay or moderate quarterbacks.  It turns out we were heading into the Brady-Manning era which would be led by great quarterbacks with the rivalry between the top two as the centerpiece.  Yes the two had faced off twice in 2001 but those were Brady’s first start and first road start with no one expecting anything from him and the Colts were an off year that would lead to the firing of their head coach, Jim Mora.  

    Despite the disastrous start where they were blown out 31-0 in the opener they rallied back and finished with a 14-2 record.  In the playoffs they beat the co-MVPs that year Payton Manning and Steve McNair.  

Happy?

    The Super Bowl against the Panthers was one of my favorites. Two great defenses tore into the offenses at the start of each half and continued half way into the 2nd and 4th quarters respectively.  It was nearing the end of each half that the two defenses were worn down leading to a quarterback duel between Tom Brady and Jake Delhomme.  At the end of the first half Brady and the Pats were on top 14-10, but during the shootout in the second half Delhomme and Panthers managed to see it tied 29-29.  That is when Brady led the Pats offense on another miracle drive that ended with another game-winning Vinatieri-kick.   

Again!

    That year the offense and defense were equals that complimented on another.  Both the Head Coach and Quarterback deserve equal credit for this one. 

Super Bowl 39

2004 New England Patriots

2/6/2005

Both evenly responsible for win

     “Yes, it is a dynasty!”  The announcer said after the Patriots secured their third win in four years.  Very much like the previous year’s team, except for a better running game with the acquisition of Corey Dillon, the Patriots finished this season 14-2 and took down the Colts and Steelers led by the likes of Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger respectively.

A master at work!

    The Super Bowl was a duel between two evenly talented teams who in the first two quarters matched each other score for score. In the fourth quarter the Pats were able to pull ahead by ten and the Eagles were only able to pull within three as the game ended on a Rodeny Harrison interception.  Like the season before the offense and defense were perfect complements and the Head Coach and Quarterback deserve equal credit. 

On the wrong side of sack for Mr. McNabb

Super Bowl 42

2007 New England Patriots

2/3/2008

More at fault for loss: Brady

    The Super Bowl that we Patriot fans hate talking about the most: the loss of the perfect season. I am going to make this quick. In Brady’s defense you could say he had his team up by four with less than three minutes to go.  However like Super Bowl 36 I am judging this by the whole performance not just then end of the game.  If your defense holds your opponents to under twenty points and you have one of the most explosive offenses in the history of the game (with Randy Moss and Wes Welker as your star receivers)then that needs to be a win.  Yet, they were only able to put up two scores.  Ironically, earlier that week Brady joked about a Giants player’s 20-17 Giants prediction when he said, “You think we’re only going to score 17 points?” If they did they would have tied and gone to overtime. 

One of the worst days of my life!

Super Bowl 46
2011 New England Patriots
2/5/2012
More at fault for loss: Brady

    Rubbing salt in the wound the Patriots fall again to the same team that denied them their perfect season four years prior.  The same thing almost happened again.  The Pats got three more points this time but you had a great offense that for some reason couldn’t beat a team who your defense held to under twenty points.  (Yes I understand the Giants scored 21 but 2 of those came on a safety when Brady threw out of bounds in his own end zone on the opening their drive.) God, it was an ugly game.

Here we are again.

 

Super Bowl 49

2014 New England Patriots

2/1/2015

More responsible for win: Brady

     Like Super Bowl 36 everyone remembers how this one ended.  The Malcolm Butler interception at the goal line the game’s last moments to seal the win.  You might think we would credit Belichick more.  The Coach gets credit but the lion’s share of this one belongs to Tom Brady.  The way the sliced threw the so-called “Legion of Boom” leading the team back from a ten point fourth quarter deficit to a four point lead by the way of two touchdowns.  The game that truly ended the Manning/Brady debate as the same defense had squashed Manning’s Broncos in the previous Super Bowl.

Whose the GOAT?

Super Bowl 51

2016 New England Patriots

2/5/2017

Both evenly responsible for win

    

No chance...

28-3 that is what everyone remembers about this game and for good reason.  The Patriots down 28-3 in the third quarter rallied to the greatest comeback in the history of the Super Bowl.  With this game, both Brady and Belichick were both equally responsible for both getting themselves in the deep hole and also equally responsible for getting them out.  It was a unique combination of offense to assemble the points combined with a defense that held the other side to none and created opportunities with turnovers.   

...at all

Super Bowl 52

2017 New England Patriots

2/4/2018

More at fault for loss: Belichick

    Yeah this loss is on Belichick.  When your quarterback throws for over 500 yards and the offense scores 33 points and you’re supposed to be a defensive genius then it is on you to win.  When your big decision before the game is to bench one your top corners who won you the Super Bowl three years ago. I don’t know who else to blame but the coach in this situation.   

This one is on the coach

Super Bowl 53

2018 New England Patriots

2/3/2019

More responsible for win: Belichick

     Like their first Super Bowl appearance when they also played the Rams, Brady and his offense couldn’t score more than 13 points.  Those are normally losing numbers but when you have a defense that performed as well as theirs did that day it was nine points more than needed.  That one was “In Bill We Trust.”

Defense wins championships!

HAMILTON AND JOHN ADAMS

After seeing the great musical Hamilton when it premiered on Disney+ earlier this month I found myself enjoying it immensely.  I thought it would be fun to do a short compare and contrast with another great work that I have enjoyed: John Adams.  This was a miniseries that HBO produced and aired in 2008, which like Hamilton was met with rave reviews from critics and was given numerous awards.   

The differences are immediate and visually obvious Hamilton is a stage play while John Adams is mini-series for television.  John Adams has seven episodes each slightly over an hour making the entire project over eight hours long, where Hamilton total run time is two and half hours.  It is true that Hamilton only lived about half as long as John Adams but that the play has less than a third of the time to tell his story.   The star of Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, also wrote the play, while John Adams starred Paul Giamatti and was written by Kirk Ellis.

David Morse as George Washington in John Adams. 

Then there are the aesthetics.  Hamilton is a musical and it bills itself as “the story of America then told by America of today.” The genre of music is a diverse selection of R &B, soul, hip-hop, and traditional-style show tunes.  The casting of Hamilton is revolutionary diverse with roles of white historical figures going to actors who are people of color.  This is done following the “America then told by America today” standard.  The nation is a much more diverse place then it was in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries.  Not only has the diversity increased, but as a measure of the country’s progress, the positions people of color now have the opportunity to fill has changed as well.  The play was written and premiered during the presidency of Barrack Obama.   It was a powerful message of inclusion in a narrative where people of color were traditional excluded.   

Christopher Jackson as George Washington in Hamilton. 

John Adams on the other hand is a period piece which does its best to retain an authentic look from the period.  This can be seen from the wardrobe trying to replicate the type of fabrics of the period; to the props trying to insure authentic appearance to the carriages, fire arms, etc; finally to the make-up trying to make the actors look more like the historical figures they are trying to represent.  In short, their set tries to re-create the world as it existed in the late 18^th century.

Daveed Diggs as Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton. 

Now we come to the similarities.  Both works are based on a life of an American Founding Father.  Both works are closely based on popularly written biographies about those founders.  John Adams was based on David McCullough’s 2001 biography of the same name, while Hamilton was based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography titled Alexander Hamilton. 

Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson in John Adams. 

The most important similarity between the two works (and if you take anything away from this review let be this) is while the settings of these works are the American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution these events are not what either is about.   Both are about its principal subject be it Alexander Hamilton or John Adams.  Every event we witness and every other historical figure we meet is based on what the subject perceived.  However when one glances back with that in mind it again brings us to important distinctions in each work. 

In John Adams the American Revolution is a gruesome and undesirable necessity carried out in order to defend the rights of the colonists as citizens, because that is what the Revolution was to Mr. Adams.  In Hamilton, the American Revolution is exciting and wonderful opportunity for talented people born without high privilege to “rise up” and above their station.  This is because that is what Revolution meant to Alexander Hamilton.   Hamilton presents George Washington as this courageous general who doubles as a father figure, because that is who he was to fatherless Alexander Hamilton.  While the John Adams George Washington is a noble, stoic, and often distant figure because that is how he appeared to Adams.     

Then there is Thomas Jefferson.  The Thomas Jefferson of Hamilton comes off as the villain of the piece.  Easily one of the most enjoyable characters of the play Jefferson is exciting to watch and he is foil to poor Mr. Hamilton in every instance of the play’s second act. Again, this is who Jefferson was to Alexander Hamilton, so they play presents him as such.  In John Adams, Jefferson is often quiet and self-conscious, Adams is one of those who help him find his voice.  He recruits him to write the Declaration of Independence.  Once Jefferson has his voice and once America becomes a nation complete with a new Constitution the two friends become rivals.  The relationship of Adams and Jefferson as one-time friends who turn on each other mirrors the relationship between Hamilton and Burr in the play, except for that disastrous ending. 

Speaking of Burr, he had no role in the HBO miniseries.  Not only was Aaron Burr absent but James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is mentioned only in passing.  This has little to do with the historic importance rather their impact on the life of John Adams in comparison with other figures.  Likewise the play Hamilton does not include the John Hancock, Samuel Adams (mentioned only as the name of a drink) and most importantly does not have a character of Benjamin Franklin.  This is not an over-site of Lin-Manuel Miranda just a reflection of those historical figures impact on Alexander Hamilton.

What is most interesting is how Adams and Hamilton are presented in each other’s drama.  In Hamilton Adams never makes an appearance, but he comes up in discussion and song a number of times.  He first mentioned by Eliza as she tries to get her husband to come out to the country pointing out that Adams does this for his wife.  To which Hamilton responds that, as Vice President, Adams does not have a real job.  Later after Adams becomes President, Jefferson and Madison are discussing how he and Hamilton had a fall out leading to Adams dismissing Hamilton and Hamilton coming out and publicly attacking the leader of his own party.  This damages the Federalists so badly that it practically hands the election to the Democratic-Republicans.  After Jefferson and Madison are done talking it over the audience sees Hamilton from the raised flat of the stage and dropping a book down to the floor shouting John Adams name.

Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton in John Adams

In John Adams, Hamilton as a character appears in two episodes.  His first appearance is in the fifth episode “Unite or Die.” In this episode Hamilton appears at an early meeting of George Washington’s cabinet.  During the meeting he basically schools Thomas Jefferson on economics and lays out plans to set up a National Bank and assume the states’ debts.  This of course laid the ground work for stability of the United States Government.  A success from the Washington Administration that when Jefferson became President in 1801 he found that messing with it would be detrimental to the Union.  Hamilton’s second appearance is in the sixth episode “Unnecessary War” in which shows the clash between Adams/Hamilton more sympathetically to Adams.  Their fallout shows a Hamilton who has bitten off more than he can chew and needs Adams to bring him back to reality.

In closing I highly enjoyed both works and would encourage anyone to watch them.  Just remember when doing so with each presentation you are learning about a great historical figure who existed in an extraordinary setting of the American Revolution.  The setting and the characters in it are seen only from the view of the main character.  This is not to say you might not learn a thing or two about these periods but just keep in mind how it is slanted.                  

“YOU ARE SPAM!” MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH FACEBOOK AND MY LOST LITTLE STAR TREK BLOG

               

               One of my most enjoyable hobbies is blogging.  I am not a big time blogger by anyone’s standards.  I first started blogging about 12 years ago when I started this blog where I would review history books I had been reading, an occasional political opinion I would want to strongly express, or an occasional tribute to a lost loved one.  Around that same time I joined Facebook and one of the things that I loved about it, in addition to being able to contact with lost-by-distance friends and relatives, was being able to share your likes and hobbies with other like-minded people.

                In 2016 with the new Ghostbusters movie coming out I decided to go down a trip in memory lane and watch the classic films and animated series.  I started a blog documenting that journey and would share it with my friends on Facebook.  Lately with the 2020 movie, now moved to 2021, I started re-watching episodes, re-editing posts (that Ghostbusters blog was a rushed job it needs it), and re-sharing with my current Ghostbusters Facebook groups.

                Around this time last year I decided to work on a life dream.  With my CBS subscription giving me access to the entire franchise I would start a new blog where I would cover the entire Star Trek universe.  Not on a time limit set to make a new movie or series date, just in order bit by bit putting quality over quantity.  Chip away at it as a hobby.  Like with my other blogs, I also chose to share the posts on Facebook with my fellow fans.

                In my short time plugging away on my blog I had written an article on it about Continuity and Canon, made reviews for every episode in the first season, an article about why production order is the best way to watch The Original Series, and I started posting episode reviews from season two.  And when I shared them with my Facebook groups I received positive and constructive feedback from my fellow fans, which was great.  There was a bump or two in the road when one group didn’t approve my review for “Mudd’s Women” because I called Harry Mudd a pimp!  However it is their group and they can approve whatever they like.  I also enjoy being able to respond with a written review if anyone randomly asks what I thought of an episode I already covered.

I am currently a member of seven Star Trek Facebook groups: Star Trek, Star Trek Forever, Everything Star Trek, Star Trek Forever and Always, The Original Star Trekkers, The Star Trek Fan Pagefor Everyone, and Star Trek Universe.  I want to point out that in these groups I will often like, comment on, or visit links to other fan created content not just to air my own stuff.  Now I wouldn’t always post the same reviews to each group as I joined them at different times.  When I joined a new group it seemed ridiculous to me to post a bunch of post on that new group right away.  I wanted to do so in the same timing as I did with the older group.

I usually share a new post with my own page then with Star Trek and Star Trek Forever over the course of the next two days as those were the first two groups I joined.  A day later I would share a post that was 4 posts older than the new on Everything Star Trek.  A day after that I would share one that was about 20 posts-old in Star Trek Forever and Always and the Original StarTrekkers.  Then a day or so later I would do the same in Star Trek Fan Page For Everyone and Star Trek Universe. 

               

Okay not my stairs but you get the idea!

                Last week I was in a horrible freak accident where I fell down a flight of stairs while carrying a laundry basket and I broke my leg.  I am writing from there now and I wanted to say that the hospital doctors and staff at Central Maine Medical Center have been incredible.  When I was able to access to social media again I got flood of loving messages from family and friends who because of the outbreak can’t actually come and see me.   However there was also a note on several of my groups that a number of my posts were being pulled off as spam.  At first I thought I was being spam-targeted by a fellow fan upset by something I had written.  That had happened once before.  However after taking with several of the administrators of the groups I am a part of we quickly determined that this was not the case.

                The truth was worse: I was somehow caught up in an anti-spam algorithm.  All of my links in all seven of my groups and my own personal page have vanished.  My blog still exists safe at blogger.com but my connection to the Star Trek Facebook community reduced to a whisper.   Now I want to be clear Facebook told me this was spam, it was not a trademark or copyright issue which normally would be covered by fair use anyway.  I am very broken-hearten it is like getting kicked when you are down, or in my view hospitalized after surgery.

                I messaged Facebook and they have not yet responded.  To be frank customer care was never their specialty.  As disappointed as I am by Facebook I can never say they cheated me.  I had always been a defender of theirs and my defense was this: if you don’t like the product ask for your money back for you always get it.  So I am now going to be looking for a new audience for my blog and I hope this can serve as a warning to others to be careful about sharing your posts too much you might not get invited back to the party.         

GETTING READY TO FIGHT AND THE EARLY FIGHTING

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm (1948)

Part of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

                In the last few books I read by Winston Churchill he was discussing the history of English-speaking peoples.  That is a subject that he was not really that impartial about but he was certainly more so than about this topic.  For this is the first volume of his personal war memoirs and World War II was the event that was going to define his legacy.  Primary sources are always fascinating because you get into the head of the great actors who performed on the world stage.  You get to see their point of view on everything, how they saw other historical figures, and their thoughts on individual actions.  In that Winston Churchill never disappoints.

                This volume, The Gathering Storm, divides into two books.  The first book deals with Churchill as a parliamentary backbencher battling against the establishment, trying to alert the government and the people of the coming threat of the Nazi menace, and getting beaten back each time.  The second book deals with Churchill as the First Sea Lord, the British equivalent to the Secretary of the Navy in the United States, managing the Royal Navy in the first year of the war.  Of the two books I find the first and most interesting, it deals with a lot of political intrigue and the nature of humans particularly humans who have just gone through great conflict not too long ago.  The second book I find almost kind of dull. It consists Churchill’s day to day running of the Navy trying to decide to place what admiral where,  occasionally going to dinner with Prime Minister, and even though it’s about a great conflict doesn’t seem to have  much drama until the fall of the Chamberlain Government.

                In the beginning of this volume Churchill discusses the allotment of what led up to the war, like any good World War II story and he begins of course with a disastrous Treaty of Versailles.  Churchill points out the one hand the treaty left Germany practically intact with the largest homogeneous racial block in Europe, while on the other hand it ruthlessly punish the Germans trying to force them to pay these indemnities that would give fuel to the anger in the average German that would lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

“The economic clauses of the treaty were malignant and silly to the extent that it made the modestly futile.  Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale.  These dictates give expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples the any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war.” (pg. 7)

He also discusses in length of the Great Depression.  Americans tend to think of the Great Depression as an American event, it begins with the administration of Herbert Hoover is finally chased away by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  But in reality the Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon that hurt many nations including those in Europe.  As bad as it was the American and British institutions survive the crisis, but many nations in Europe had governments that were now far younger and far more experimental.  For those fragile regimes the Great Depression would destroy them, for the people had very little faith in them to begin with.  Whereas the American and British Experience only saw the fall of politicians; both Herbert Hoover and Ramsay MacDonald paid the political price for being in office at the wrong time.  That is not to say that either one could not have done better but universal blame is beyond ridiculous.

“The consequences of this dislocation of economic life became world-wide.  A general contraction of trade in the face of unemployment and declining production followed.  Care restrictions were imposed to protect the home markets.  The general crisis brought with it acute monetary difficulties and paralyzed internal credit.  This spread of ruined unemployment far and wide throughout the globe.  Mr. MacDonald’s government, with all their problems behind them, saw unemployment during 1930 and 1931 bound up in their faces from one million to nearly three millions.  It was said that in the United States ten million persons were without work.  The entire banking system of the great Republic was thrown into confusion and temporary collapse.  Consequential disasters fell upon Germany and other European countries.  However, nobody starved in the English-speaking world.” (pg. 35)

I also found the view of Winston Churchill on what Germany should have done to be very interesting.  Ever a loyal monarchist, Churchill believed that many of the defeated European nations instead of tossing off their old monarchies should just embrace the British model and retained the sovereign for at the very least to be a rallying figurehead with little actual power in practice even if substantial power was retained on paper.  In Churchill’s view Hitler and the Nazi Party might have had a difficult time coming to power if Germany was able to retain a Kaiser in some form.  He was disappointed in failure of German officials to carry that through.

“This policy, if achieved, would have filled the void at the summit of the German nation towards which Hitler was now in evidently making his way.  In all the circumstances this was the right course.  But how could Bruening lead Germany to it?  The conservative element, which was drifting to Hitler, might have been recalled by the restoration of Kaiser Wilhelm; but neither the Social Democrats nor the trade-union forces would tolerate the restoration of the old Kaiser or the Crown Prince.    Bruening’s plan was not to re-create the Second Reich.  He desired a constitutional monarchy on the English lines.  He hopes that one of the sons of the Crown Prince might be a suitable candidate.” (pg. 63)

                Churchill was also does a great job explaining the political climate of the day.  There was a very strong and powerful antiwar movement in Great Britain; these were people who believe the tragedy of the First World War was caused by nations running into the conflict with reckless haste. If anything the lesson I think we should take from this is not to be overly simplistic in politics. The antiwar movement in the 1930s was right about the problems of World War I but they’re completely wrong about the situation World War II.   A generation later that antiwar movement would be in the right again and would find mainstream resistance mostly based on the legacies of the Second World War.  In Churchill’s view although being a politician in such climate is hard it is no excuse for negligence.

“It would be wrong in judging the policy of the British Government not to remember the passionate desire for peace which animated in the uninformed, misinformed majority of the British people, and seem to threaten with political extinction any party or politician who dared take any other line.  This, of course, is no excuse for the political leaders who fall short of their duty.  It is much better for the parties or politicians to be turned out of office than to imperil the life of the nation.  Moreover, there is no record in our history of any Government asking Parliament and the people for the necessary measures of defense and being refused.  Nevertheless, those who scared the timid McDonald – Baldwin Government from their path should at least keep silent.” (pg. 112)

Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who Churchill blames for Britain's failed state of readiness for World War II 

One of the most interesting pieces of this book is the character of Neville Chamberlain. Most people remember Chamberlain from his embarrassing press conference in which he declared “peace in our time.”  Most Americans tend to associate Chamberlain as the British Herbert Hoover, the out of touch in at political leader who is pushed aside for a more dynamic Roosevelt in the person of Winston Churchill.  But nothing would be further from the truth.  Roosevelt was a Democrat and Hoover was a Republican.  Churchill and Chamberlain belong to the same party.  Chamberlain died shortly after leaving office, he had been set to hold a position Winston Churchill’s Government and if he had he might’ve repaired his broken legacy.  Since he can not, Churchill takes it upon himself to defend him.  Churchill wants the reader to know that the true villain of the story was not Neville Chamberlain but rather Stanley Baldwin.  In Churchill’s view Baldwin left the country dangerously unprepared and Chamberlain had little to work with.  Chamberlain was tasked with buying time so Britain could prepare to take on Germany.  Churchill says that Britain could never go to war for Czechoslovakia she just didn’t have the means.  Chamberlain’s failure to block it was not a failure like most people thought.

Neville Chamberlain, not so bad?

“Thus an administration more disastrous than any other in our history saw all its errors and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation.  There was, however, a bill to be paid, and it took the new House of Commons nearly ten years to pay it.” (pg. 180)
“There was also a serious and practical line of argument, albeit not to their credit, on which the Government could rest themselves.  No one can deny that we were hideously unprepared for war.  Who have a more forward in proving this and I and my friends?  Great Britain had allowed herself to be far surpassed by the strength of the German Air Force.  All are vulnerable points were unprotected.  Barely a hundred anti-aircraft guns could be found for the defense of the largest city and centre of population in the world; and these were largely in the hands of untrained men.  If Hitler was honest and lasting peace had in fact been achieved, Chamberlain was right.  If, unhappily, he had been deceived, at least we should gain a breathing – space to repair the worst of our neglects.  These considerations, and the general relief and rejoicing that the horrors of war have been temporally averted, commanded the loyal sent of the masses of Government supporters.  The House approved of the policy of His Majesties Government, ‘by which war was averted in the recent crisis,’ by 366 to 144.  The 30 or 40 dissident conservatives could do no more than register their disapproval by abstention.  This we did as a formal and united act.” (pg. 326-7)

As I mentioned earlier the second part of the book is simply Winston Churchill as the First Sea Lord.  It is a very good account of the day-to-day life of the First Sea Lord during World War II.  This section of the book was hardly interesting until the government battle at the end.  That battle resulted in the fall Neville Chamberlain’s Government.  What is interesting is that Chamberlain was not forced out of office in any sort of landslide election.  It is important to remember in  a parliamentary system they have what is called a vote of no-confidence that has the power to bring down a prime minister.  Chamberlain never received a vote of no-confidence his majority prevailed in Parliament.  It had however gotten smaller and this concerned him seeing as he was trying to fight a war.  Churchill urged him to stay on the Chamberlain felt he was too much of a lightning rod and a new government had to be formed with all the parties cooperating.  Chamberlain suggested to King George VI that Churchill be appointed his place.

“The King had made no stipulation about the Government being nationally character, and I felt that it my commission was in no formal way dependent upon this point.  But in view of what happened, and the conditions which had led to Mr. Chamberlain’s resignation, a Government of national character was obviously inherent in the situation.  If I had found it impossible to come to terms with the Opposition Parties, I should not have been constitutionally debarred from trying to form the strongest Government possible of all who would stand by the country in the hour of peril, provided that such a Government could command a majority in the House of Comments.” (pg.665)

So the book ends with Winston Churchill becoming his nation’s Head of Government.  He would be the coalition of all the parties against Nazi Germany.  His actions in that office are the subject of the following volumes.

{Video is from the film The Gathering Storm 2002}