Brian Wolfe

Mervyn,

Thank you for that comment Mervyn.

Rick,

I agree; from all that I have read there seems to be no evidence that Chamberlain was using a stalling measure with the exception of those who would defend him no matter what the evidence would suggest.Britain was ill equipped to meet the German Army one on one in the late 1930s though the British Royal Navy was a force to be reckoned with and I think history proves that the British Royal Air Force of 1940 was more than capable, given they had the early warning system up and running along with an over abundance of intestinal fortitude.

Regards

Brian

Fine! Now your on the "other" list, smart guy.
Regards
Brian

Ok, you got me, I don't really have a Christmas Card list...but I do have a list...good news you are not on it.

Another point for Mr. Chamberlain. His parents named him Neville for God's sake. Poor little fellow was probably beaten up at school and had his lunch money stolen on a regular basis. He was doomed to give things away without a fight.

Regards

Brian

I was thinking the same thing regarding Churchill.
One of the things I don't think many of the members are aware of is that you were in England during the war and would have not only experienced the fears and worries of the times but heard what was being said about the different leaders. This gives you an opinion based on more than history written by authors that who not likely born until after the war and therefore with no real-time experiences.
So, keep "stiring".
Regards
Brian

Mervyn,

As you can imagine (since we both have Australian friends) why I stayed away from the mention of Gallipoli.

As to changing your opinion, I do hope that my article would not have that effect. It was too shallow to change minds, if indeed anything written by me could change minds to any great degree.

Thank goodness Hitler refused to listen to his generals, for the most part, as it turns out he may have been one of our very best allies. It has been suggested that was the reason the allies never seriously attemped to assinate Hitler, that and his own people were busy enough trying to take care of that for us.

Thanks for your comment.

Regards

Brian

These are simply musing and not an argument;

Hear, hear. (Parliamentary speak don't cha know).

I would consider my comments more along the lines of a Non-Paper (aka aide-mémoire). (Diplomatic speak don't cha know)

So true. I would like to debate this if I were more knowledgable on the subject. "Parliamentary speak", love it. One of the oft used words along those lines, "notwithstanding". We have whole clauses dedicated to this word in Canadian Parliamentary Laws and Acts. I believe you'll find the Notwithstanding Clause within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now where did I put my copy.

Regards

Brian

Hi Rick,

I suppose we need to ask, "what is a good leader". Is it someone whose actions reflect the will of the people or one who acts as he (or she) believes to be correct. I think we have examples of both in Chamberlain and Hitler. Chamberlain, in enacting the will of the general population to avoid a war that would cost the lives of yet another generation of British men and women and Hitler in emposing his will over the population and leading them into another conflict. As far as the two men, and even the two different nations of the time, we are probably looking at compairing apples and oranges. Were there people who saw the appeasement of the Nazi regiem as the wrong direction to follow? Sure and the same could be said in regard to the German poeple. However the vast majority of the future allied countries did indeed care little about the nations given over to Hitler. It was a "small price" to pay to avoid war. Of course we now know that this very policy did nothing to convince the German people that the Nazis were wrong, aftetr all it is easy to get swept up in a fervor national support when you are seeing victory after victory and the other side sees only that, "at least we avoided war...for today". Short sighted, certainly; perservation of life for "yet one more day attitude" most assuredly. Did the American President not refuse to intervien in China when he arguably could have? Sure he did, yet when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour he went to war and was an effictive war leader. I can't help but to wonder if Chamberlain would not have been a good war leader had he lived, after all as has been stated it was Chamberlain's government (with him as leader)who declaired war on German and not Chirchill. We'll never know for certain but perhaps food for thought all the same.

Regards
Brian

Hello Megan,

I do agree that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to avoid viewing history with a mind set of the era in which we are speaking. On the other hand, my father blamed Chirchill for the disasterous raid on Deippe untill the day he passed away, even though he loved the British people and often said he would have liked to have retired in the South of England. It was not until resent research into the raid found that it was in fact a diversional raid in order to "pinch" an Enigma machine, which was not located at that site at the time. I only wish that I could have made him aware of that before he passed away. My point is that there are even examples of the mind set of the day that clouds history and makes research difficult to say the least.

I of course agree with you that we need to find out what the mind set of the day was if we want to get an accurate picture of the time period we are researching. It would seem that even then history is clouded with misconception and purposeful misdirection.

Thank you for your reply, these are the exchanges of points of view I was looking to generate.

Regards

Brian

Hello Rick,

Thank you for your reply, it certainly supports the belief of si vis pacem para bellum. Sometimes it seems that the only thing diplomacy achieves, when it works, is to buy time to prepare for the inevitable war to follow. History shows that the nation that prepares for war seldom finds itself engaged in an exercise in futility. Inevitably they seem to find uses for their military build up, be it defence or aggression. We look back now and think that surely the German people must had thought it odd that their leader saw a need for a massive military when things were going well economically and the enemies of the last great war were now non-aggressive. The event that propelled the Nazi party to power was the Great Depression, as early on they were experiencing the same boom as the rest of the world, in spite of the war reparations imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles. I can't help but wonder if there would have been a "Dunkirk" had Chamberlain been alone in his belief that he was doing the correct thing and the British Government and their military been thinking along the lines of si vis passum para bellum.

These are simply musing and not an argument; you make some very good points.

Regards

Brian

Hi IrishGunner,

My son was born in 1977, the year Star Wars first came out (and the year Elvis died), years later my son became a die-hard SW fan as well and even has some "original" scripts. Quotes from the movies MUST be accurate otherwise you are in for a loooong lecture. The phrase from the movie is actually just "I am your father", but using "Luke" just makes it sound better and irritates him at the same time, so it's a win, win situation.

Regards

Brian

Spicy if you have a Latin accent. That's not meant to be racist by the way.

Regards
Brian

Hi Mervyn,

I'm glad I was able to make a positive difference to you day.

Regards

Brian

Ah, man man after my own heart.

Regards

Brian

True but then I think that possibly steriotypical Feminists hate real men.

I'm glad to see that this blog is being recieved in the spiril of humor, as was the intention.

Regards

Brian

WIth a beer chaser?

Regards

Brian

Very interesting article Rick, I found it most informative.

Thanks for taking the time and effort in producing such work.

Regards

Brian

Yet another well researched and written piece, Rick, well done.

The forum benifits from works such as yours.

Regards

Brian

As Mervyn has suggested please repost this in the correct section.
From the photos the bolt area looks like a Lee Enfield Carbine Mk.I but the forestock is not one I recognize. The markings show it to have been issued to the Canadian military.
We would need a little better photos with more details plus some measurement such as overall length etc. to be able to lend any more help.
Please be aware that we are not being jerks by asking you to repost, it's because not all members will see your post here and the weapons guys are more apt to see it in the correct section.
Sorry I cannot be of more help at this time.
Regards
Brian

Great feedback and certainly food for thought, thank you to all.

Regards

Brian

Hi Rick and Mervyn,

The cure for squirrels here is hawks, enough of the tree rats are dinner for the raptors that nature seems to balance out quite nicely, at least in my tiny forest behind our home.

I think what made the world of sixty or seventy years ago seem a lot safer to Mervyn and I (I don't mean to speak for you Mervyn) was that we were children and viewed the world through the eyes of a child. War was a glorious adventure and as it has been said the only persuit worthy of a gentleman; or at least that was how we say it. Me with my little wooden sword running up and down the alley beside our home, with my friends, chasing imaginary foes and always victorious with only the occasional skinned knee or sliver from the narrow pieces of lumber we used as our swords to show for any misadventures. While the world did indeed change and with it those we seen as the enemy; but the greatest change may indeed have been within ourselves.

Regards (and just a slight bit depressed now)

Brian

Hi Mervyn,

Thanks for your comments. The world you and I grew up in has gone and the one that took its place might as well have been a century apart from ours as it is so unfamiliar. Not that today isn't as good as the days when we grew up, just different and that is enough to make it seem like a different plannet entirely. As to the First World War I would agree that there were a lot of very good people trying to keep the world from entering into war. Unfortunetly there were more selfish, greedy war mongers that couldn't have cared less about the suffering a European-wide war, which would drag the reast of humanity with it, would cause.

I'll climb down off my "soap box" now.

Regards

Brian

Hi Chris,

Very good points.

I too am constantly surprised at the number of parrells between then and the events right up to today.

Thanks for adding to this post.

Regards

Brian

Hi Jock,

Thanks for your comments.

Perhaps the only blessing for our generation is that we won't last long enough to find out.

From what I've read WWII had its roots in the decisions after the end of WWI. The world slipped back into a state where most people wanted peace at any cost so really WWII may not have been avaoidable either considering the atmosphere of the times. Certainly we have proven that war is not preventable by our actions as a species even as late as yesterday. This blog is getting depressing.

Regards

Brian

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your comments and you'll get no arguments from me on your additional points. While this has truly been a topic covered many times I wanted to reintroduce it due to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the War. In addition I was hoping that it might start some dialogue on the subject, which thankfully, it has.

Regards

Brian

I've often thought the same thing. My first impulse was to assume that the recipients just had to be girls! Ha ha.