Tag Archives: Hitler

Would we have collaborated with Hitler?

An article and a television review from the Daily Telegraph ( London), Monday 20 February 2017.

 (1) Would the British have collaborated with the Nazis? (Nigel Jones).

(2) SS-GB (BBC; reviewed by Jasper Rees).

Some would have fought to the end like Churchill, but others would have accepted Nazi occupation

 NIGEL JONES

 A swastika flag flutters over Buckingham Palace . The crash of SS jackboots echoes along Downing Street . Such images will become familiar over the nest few weeks as the BBC screens its adaptation of SS-GB, Len Deighton’s chilling portrayal of Britain under Nazi occupation.

     But we don’t really need Deighton’s brilliant novel to tell us what might have happened had the [Second World War] ended differently. We already know.

     We know because the Nazis had made meticulous plans for how they would rule a conquered Britain , including a blacklist of hundreds of prominent people who had expressed their dislike of Hitler’s ré­gime and were marked for arrest and execution.

     Top place on the blacklist went, of course, to Winston Churchill. He pledged that he and his Cabinet would fight until they lay on the ground choking on their own blood.

     But would Britain have resisted to the last? The evidence suggests the response would have been much meeker than Churchill’s growled defiance.

     That evidence exists in the archives of Mass Observation, Britain ’s first public opinion organisation, at Sussex University . Respondents often express strong doubts about eventual British victory, and even exhibit a worrying admiration for Nazi “achievements”.

     Churchill himself would have died in the last ditch, smoking gun in hand, but some of his colleagues were not made of such stern stuff. Several would have gone, cap in hand, to seek a “reasonable” accommodation with a triumphant Hitler, and would almost certainly have played prominent parts in a Vichy-style puppet government.

     Surprisingly, they might not have included the Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley. Mosley had taken against Hitler when they met in Berlin in 1936 at his wedding to Diana Mitford and disliked receiving orders from anyone, even Hitler.

     The real collaborators would have been led by the Duke of Windsor, the former King Edward VIII. He had often expressed fawning regard for the Nazi ré­gime and even made a shameful pilgrimage to pay court to the Führer at his Bavarian home, the Berghof.

     Others included Lord Halifax, the foreign secretary, and even Britain ’s First World War premier, David Lloyd George. He called Hitler a “great man”, and refused to join Churchill’s government because he wanted to play the role of Britain ’s Pétain: an old hero recalled from retirement to lead the country in its hour of defeat.

     More dangerous than these vain old men was Halifax ’s deputy at the Foreign Office, Rab Butler, an apostle of appeasement who despised Churchill as a “half-American adventurer” and sought to make treasonable contact with the Nazis, via a Swedish intermediary, to negotiate a peace deal. Another Tory appeaser was former MI6 agent Sam Hoare.

     Churchill distrusted all these men and neutralised them. Windsor was sent to the Bahamas , and Halifax and Hoare exiled as ambassadors to the United States and Spain . Butler was consigned to a harmless domestic role in education policy. Mosley and Mitford stayed locked up in Holloway prison until 1943, when the invasion threat had passed.

     But how would a Britain run by such traitors, and overseen by the Nazis, have functioned?

     Hitler, an admirer of the British Empire , might have given us an easier ride than France, let alone the Slavic Untermenschen in eastern Europe. But the British would have felt the Nazi lash, especially if they showed the slightest dissent.

     British Jews would have died in the Holocaust just like their counterparts in the rest of Europe . A British Resistance would have been met with ruthless repression.

     In the Channel Islands, given up by Churchill in 1940 as impossible to defend, we see the model for how Nazi rule would have looked in Britain . The bailiffs who ran Jersey and Guernsey were kept in place by the occupiers in return for slavish obedience. Notoriously, they compiled lists of non-islanders, including Jews, some of whom were deported and killed.

     The truth is that occupation of Britain would have exposed the best and worst in human nature. Some would have been heroes, risking torture and death to shelter Jews or take armed action against the invader. Some would have collaborated: denouncing neighbours, betraying friends, demeaning themselves in their submission to tyranny. Most of us would have kept our heads down and tried to muddle through, surviving as best we could.

Read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion

––––––––––––––

Leave a comment

Filed under Reblogs

The day Churchill saved Britain from the Nazis

October 13, 2014 By 0 5

The question before the meeting was very simple. Should Britain fight? Was it reasonable for young British troops to die in a war that showed every sign of being lost? Or should the British do some kind of deal that might well save hundreds of thousands of lives?

I don’t think many people of my generation are fully conscious of how close we came to such a deal. There were serious and influential voices who wanted to begin “negotiations”.

It is not hard to see why they thought as they did. The War Cabinet was staring at the biggest humiliation for British armed forces since the loss of the American colonies, and there seemed no way back.

Everyone in that room could imagine the consequences of fighting on. They knew all about war; some of them had fought in the Great War, and the hideous memory of that slaughter was only 22 years old. There was scarcely a family in Britain that had not been touched by sorrow. Was it right – was it fair – to ask the people to go through all that again? And to what end?

It seems from the Cabinet minutes that the meeting more or less kicked off with Halifax. He went straight to the point.

The Italian embassy had sent a message, he said: that this was Britain’s moment to seek mediation via Italy. This was not just a simple overture from Mussolini: it was surely a signal from his senior partner. Coiling itself round Whitehall and penetrating the heart of the House of Commons, it was a feeler from Hitler.

Churchill knew exactly what was going on. He told Halifax to forget it. Britain had been at war with Germany, and had been since September 1 the previous year. It was a war for freedom and for principle. The minute Britain accepted some Italian offer of mediation, Churchill knew that the sinews of resistance would relax. A white flag would be raised over Britain.

So he said no to Halifax. In another country, the debate might therefore have been at an end. But that is not how the British constitution works: the prime minister is primus inter pares – first among equals; he must to some extent carry his colleagues with him; and to understand the dynamics of that conversation, we must remember the fragility of Churchill’s position.

He had been prime minister for less than three weeks, and it was far from clear who were his real allies round the table. Attlee and Greenwood, the Labour contingent, were broadly supportive; and the same can be said for Sinclair the Liberal. But it was the Tories on whom he depended for his mandate – and the Tories were far from sure about Winston Churchill.

Lord Halifax,  second left, and Neville Chamberlain,  third left, meeting Mussolini in Rome

Lord Halifax, second left, and Neville Chamberlain, third left, meeting Mussolini in Rome

From his very emergence as a young Tory MP he had bashed and satirised his own party; he had then deserted them for the Liberals, and though he had eventually returned to the fold, there were too many Tories who thought of him as an unprincipled opportunist.

Halifax had been over to see Hitler in 1937 – and he had an embarrassing familiarity with Goering. But in his own way, Halifax was a patriot as much as Churchill.

He thought he could see a way to protect Britain and to safeguard the Empire, and to save lives; and it is not as if he was alone. The British ruling class was riddled with appeasers and pro-Nazis. It wasn’t just the Mitfords, or the followers of Sir Oswald Mosley.

In 1936 Lady Nelly Cecil noted that nearly all of her relatives were “tender to the Nazis”, and the reason was simple. In the Thirties, your average toff was much more fearful of Bolshevism, and communisms’ alarming ideology of redistribution, than they were fearful of Hitler. Indeed, they saw fascism as a bulwark against the reds, and they had high-level political backing.

David Lloyd George had been so dazzled by the Führer that he compared him to George Washington. Hitler was a “born leader”, declared the befuddled former British prime minister. He wished that Britain had “a man of his supreme quality at the head of affairs in our country today”. This from the hero of the First World War!

The Daily Mail had long been campaigning for Hitler to be given a free hand in eastern Europe, the better to beat up the bolshies. “If Hitler did not exist,” said the Mail, “all western Europe might now be clamouring for such a champion.”

The Times had been so pro-appeasement that the editor, Geoffrey Dawson, described how he used to go through the proofs taking out anything that might offend the Germans. The press baron Beaverbrook himself had sacked Churchill from his Evening Standard column on the grounds that he was too hard on the Nazis. Respectable liberal opinion – theatre types like John Gielgud, Sybil Thorndike, GB Shaw – was lobbying for the government to “give consideration” to talks.

Of course, the mood had changed in the last year; feelings against Germany had hardened. All I am saying – in mitigation of Halifax – is that, in seeking peace, he had the support of many British people, at all levels of society. And so the argument went on, between Halifax and the prime minister, for that crucial hour.

It was a stalemate; and it was now – according to most historians – that Churchill played his masterstroke. He announced that the meeting would be adjourned, and would begin again at 7pm. He then convened the Cabinet of 25, ministers from every department – many of whom were to hear him as prime minister for the first time.

The bigger the audience, the more fervid the atmosphere; and now he made an appeal to the emotions. Before the full Cabinet he made a quite astonishing speech – without any hint of the intellectual restraint he had been obliged to display in the smaller meeting.

He began calmly enough: “I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man.”

And he ended with this almost Shakespearean climax: “And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

At this the men in that room were so moved that they cheered and shouted, and some of them ran round and clapped him on the back.

Churchill had ruthlessly dramatised and personalised the debate. By the time the War Cabinet resumed at 7pm, the debate was over; Halifax abandoned his cause. Churchill had the clear and noisy backing of the Cabinet.

Within a year of that decision – to fight and not to negotiate – 30,000 British men, women and children had been killed, almost all of them at German hands. Weighing up those alternatives – a humiliating peace, or a slaughter of the innocents – it is hard to imagine any modern British politician having the guts to take Churchill’s line.

He had the vast and almost reckless moral courage to see that fighting on would be appalling, but that surrender would be even worse. He was right.

‘The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History’ (Hodder & Stoughton, £25) can be ordered for £22 plus £1.95 p&p from books.telegraph.co.uk. Boris Johnson will be taking part in a Q&A with Gaby Wood on October 23 at Imperial College London

Leave a comment

Filed under Reblogs