Churchill's Secret Apartheid

Thanks M0nica

I'm astonished at the pronouncements of some who had no experience, either direct or through their family's experiences, of the impact of Hitler's actions.

My father and father in law were both in reserved occupations and in the home guard during WW2, they were seriously afraid of invasion in 1940, Captain Mainwaring and Corporal Jones was close to the truth and they really were training with pitchforks at that time.
As the war progressed Italian and German POWs were sent out in working parties, it became clear that the vast majority were ordinary men who hated Hitler or Mussolini and were glad to be in the UK and out of the fighting.
Many stayed in Britain after the war and quickly absorbed into the community as were the many refugees from Eastern Europe. A former POW camp was used as a refugee camp in the 1950s the children went to the same school as myself, they had the essentials but nothing more, they had foreign sounding names but nobody took any notice and there were no problems.

The camp was closed in around 1965 and they were absorbed into the community. There is a large Italian community in a neighbouring town hard working and highly respected that grew from the POWs in WW2.

Allira

Thanks M0nica

I'm astonished at the pronouncements of some who had no experience, either direct or through their family's experiences, of the impact of Hitler's actions.

I agree, am more than astonished that a few posters would have liked Winnie to be a rainbow toting caring and all inclusive sort of social worker.He was a product of his class and age I expect, not being a spring chicken in the 1940’s.Nevertheless he was exactly what we needed as a war time leader.
Now, Hitler was as racist as it’s possible to be!

Ahem Oreo, not all social workers are rainbow toting, some of us were tough and needed to be.

Mr I wrote about the history of social work. A real source of concern to the publisher was his decision to use the language of the time when necessary. Language, approach to race, disability and inclusivity change. Churchill was a man who used language and belief systems that were not uncommon in men from his background of education, wealth and privilege. His personality combined with those things to make him a good wartime leader.

Iam64

Ahem Oreo, not all social workers are rainbow toting, some of us were tough and needed to be.

Mr I wrote about the history of social work. A real source of concern to the publisher was his decision to use the language of the time when necessary. Language, approach to race, disability and inclusivity change. Churchill was a man who used language and belief systems that were not uncommon in men from his background of education, wealth and privilege. His personality combined with those things to make him a good wartime leader.

Exactly
I used the expression social worker to denote a caring side😁

Oreo

Poor old Chamberlain, easily taken in by Herr Hitler.
Churchill was just the right man for the right time.

There are two views about that, one being that we weren't ready for war and Chamberlain bought us time to start those preparations at great cost to himself and his reputation. Churchill got the "right time" thanks to Chamberlain.

That is exactly what my father said; he said Chamberlain bought us a year's grace when factories were turned over to essential wartime preparations.

eazybee

That is exactly what my father said; he said Chamberlain bought us a year's grace when factories were turned over to essential wartime preparations.

He was right. Although some will think Churchill would have built armaments overnight singlehanded. It is sad that so many jump to rubbish Chamberlain when what he did must have been so hard.

Churchill had been warning of the threat from Germany for a decade but appeasement and dithering ruled the day so Britain did not rearm.
With hindsight it’s easy to criticize , there was no appetite for war, memories of WW1 were still strong.

David49

Churchill had been warning of the threat from Germany for a decade but appeasement and dithering ruled the day so Britain did not rearm.
With hindsight it’s easy to criticize , there was no appetite for war, memories of WW1 were still strong.

Well you certainly find it easy to criticize with hindsight. Churchill had always been keen on war right back to "joining in" with a cavalry charge. That doesn't alter the fact that what Chamberlain did was very brave, I doubt the publicity loving Churchill would have done the same.

theworriedwell

David49

Churchill had been warning of the threat from Germany for a decade but appeasement and dithering ruled the day so Britain did not rearm.
With hindsight it’s easy to criticize , there was no appetite for war, memories of WW1 were still strong.

Well you certainly find it easy to criticize with hindsight. Churchill had always been keen on war right back to "joining in" with a cavalry charge. That doesn't alter the fact that what Chamberlain did was very brave, I doubt the publicity loving Churchill would have done the same.

Well we will never know, will we. Chamberlain was an appeaser towards Hitler. In 1938 signed the Munich agreement, taken 8n by the archdem9n himself. Chamberlain was wrong, it did not stop the war, and giving away Sudentanland, not his to give, to Hitler let down the Czech people, who suffered greatly because of it.

eazybee

That is exactly what my father said; he said Chamberlain bought us a year's grace when factories were turned over to essential wartime preparations.

That is an interesting perspective. I have studied History (not to a particularly high level) but that is not a point of view that was put to me at A level in the 80s. Too soon, maybe?

By the mid 1930s it was well known that Hitler was rearming but the government did not see it as a threat and warnings were ignored.

Would it have made any difference, would the occupation of France been avoided, probably not, in 1939 the German army was massively superior to Britain and France combined.

Freya5

theworriedwell

David49

Churchill had been warning of the threat from Germany for a decade but appeasement and dithering ruled the day so Britain did not rearm.
With hindsight it’s easy to criticize , there was no appetite for war, memories of WW1 were still strong.

Well you certainly find it easy to criticize with hindsight. Churchill had always been keen on war right back to "joining in" with a cavalry charge. That doesn't alter the fact that what Chamberlain did was very brave, I doubt the publicity loving Churchill would have done the same.

Well we will never know, will we. Chamberlain was an appeaser towards Hitler. In 1938 signed the Munich agreement, taken 8n by the archdem9n himself. Chamberlain was wrong, it did not stop the war, and giving away Sudentanland, not his to give, to Hitler let down the Czech people, who suffered greatly because of it.

Once again he bought a year to prepare for the war. I honestly don't understand how people can't see that. What would Churchill have done about going into war without tanks, ammunition etc?

David49

By the mid 1930s it was well known that Hitler was rearming but the government did not see it as a threat and warnings were ignored.

Would it have made any difference, would the occupation of France been avoided, probably not, in 1939 the German army was massively superior to Britain and France combined.

The cost of living crisis of the past few years was as nothing compared to what people went through in the 30s. Would you suggest feeding malnourished children should have been put on ice while we prepared for a war that might or might not happen?

theworriedwell

David49

By the mid 1930s it was well known that Hitler was rearming but the government did not see it as a threat and warnings were ignored.

Would it have made any difference, would the occupation of France been avoided, probably not, in 1939 the German army was massively superior to Britain and France combined.

The cost of living crisis of the past few years was as nothing compared to what people went through in the 30s. Would you suggest feeding malnourished children should have been put on ice while we prepared for a war that might or might not happen?

That’s a fair comment but the population in Germany had even worse conditions after WW1 their government chose to rebuild military might, the UK could easily have matched that if it chose to.

I’m not particularly criticizing Chamberlain, he was a peacetime PM that could only lead a government that didnt want another war

David49

theworriedwell

David49

By the mid 1930s it was well known that Hitler was rearming but the government did not see it as a threat and warnings were ignored.

Would it have made any difference, would the occupation of France been avoided, probably not, in 1939 the German army was massively superior to Britain and France combined.

The cost of living crisis of the past few years was as nothing compared to what people went through in the 30s. Would you suggest feeding malnourished children should have been put on ice while we prepared for a war that might or might not happen?

That’s a fair comment but the population in Germany had even worse conditions after WW1 their government chose to rebuild military might, the UK could easily have matched that if it chose to.

I’m not particularly criticizing Chamberlain, he was a peacetime PM that could only lead a government that didnt want another war

They were less than 20 years out of the War to End All Wars. Do you think the population living poverty were interested in a theoretical war that might never happen?

The situation in Germany was different, they lost that war and had been humiliated. There motivation was different. British soldiers had been promised a land fit for heroes. They didn't get it but it would have been even worse if vast amounts of money had gone on rearmament. I know my grandfathers were disillusioned with their life after WWI, didn't stop them volunteering in WWII, as my granny said, "he was too young to fight in WWI but he did, he was too old for WWII but he did." They were heroes even if they didn't get what they were promised.

You haven't said how you'd feel about feeding those malnourished children, they were going to be the soldiers of the future so they were also a good investment.

Churchill was a man of his time and generation. Many things that we today are endorsing will no doubt be viewed with horror in 80 odd years time. You cannot judge attitudes of nearly 100 years ago with attitudes of today. Churchill was of course half American, which apparently gave him the edge when dealing, a bit cap in hand, with Roosevelt. Hitler was a monster, his cohorts were monsters, and, yes we did stand alone after Dunkirk, the rest of Europe had been neatly invaded without too much trouble and was under Nazi occupation. Their leaders either dead, captured or in London/Canada. Next stop Britain! For whatever reason Hitler chose Russia, had he not, it would have certainly been curtains for us. My maternal uncle was 13 at this time, and he later told me that people both at home and school were palpably frightened at what was about to happen next. This same Uncle, now 15, later delivered the telegram to his sister, my mother, telling her of my fathers' death in the occupied Netherlands on a bombing raid over Duisburg. Imagine these days a 15 year old delivering that sort of news to his heavily pregnant sister ? Things and attitudes were very different then as they always are in wartime. For me, without the tenacity of Churchill, the outcome of that war could have been very different and very horrifying.