The World at War

[Arran]

Re: The World at War

I have not got round to watching the series yet but in 1973 Cabinet Papers and other government documents from the WW2 era were still locked away (from Thames Television) under the 30 year secrecy rule, so there may be errors or omissions that weren't apparent at the time.

Have any historians reviewed and commented on the series?

[zabadak]

Re: The World at War

Ooh, good point and question! Would love to know!

[Arran]

Re: The World at War

You're not suggesting that Hitler wasn't as bad as he's portrayed surely??

It's a bit more complex than this. My great grandparents were to a certain extent admirers of Hitler back in the 1930s. If you look at Encyclopedia Britannica from this era it refers to Hitler as a great German statesman. They had experienced the depression of the 1930s first hand but were impressed at how Hitler had totally transformed Germany from complete ruin in the 1920s into a prosperous and powerful nation, so concluded that Britain needed a similar strong and benevolent leader rather than the pathetic shower that comprised British politics at the time. Both the 1931 and 1935 general elections returned Conservative governments with thumping great majorities and Conservative MPs representing downtrodden inner cities constituencies in Liverpool and Glasgow simply because the Labour and Liberal Parties had totally screwed up leaving the Conservatives as the only game in town.



My great grandparents detested Winston Churchill in the 1930s. They viewed him to be a crass and inept peacetime politician that was thrown out of office twice (and rightly so) and an arrogant spiv who supported the bankers who had caused the Great Depression whilst showing utter contempt for the poor and the common folk. He opposed Keynesian economics and upheld austerity. They also did not believe that he was a genuine true blue Tory but was an old school Edwardian Liberal at heart. A relic of a previous age who was trying to get back into power to continue damaging Britain for his own selfish gain. Similar opinions of Churchill were commonplace at the time.


My great grandparents were totally opposed to Britain going to war with Germany unless Germany first attacked Britain. They did not believe that Hitler had any desire to conquer the whole world but instead his regime worked to unite the German speaking countries. In fact neither Hitler nor any other senior politicians in Germany had any strong desire to recapture the overseas German colonies lost in 1918. A British victory in another war with Germany would be a pyrrhic victory as the war would bankrupt Britain, result in a huge loss of life on both sides, the destruction of British cities, and the end of the British empire. They believed that the only real victor of such a war would be the Soviet Union where it would boost the legitimacy of communism and cement it even further into place.


Even after the victory of Britain winning WW2 my great grandparents were uneasy with Churchill as PM. They interpreted the result of the 1945 general election as a clear indication that the British public did not trust or want Churchill as a politician in peacetime even though it could be seen as an epitome of ingratitude towards the government which had defeated Hitler.


What is interesting is that my great grandparents talked about bankers in the 1930s but they did not mention Jews or Jewish interests until the 1950s. They never said anything about WW2 being a Jewish war but instead stated that Churchill was a man who loved war and wanted a fight for the fun of it just to show the world who is boss even though it was Chamberlain rather than Churchill who declared war on Germany.

[tex]

Re: The World at War

Great insight into both pre war and post war political wrangling Aaron

[Richard1978]

Re: The World at War

Great insight into both pre war and post war political wrangling Aaron

Yes that's true.

Until it looked like we were heading for war with Germany Hitler wasn't that unpopular, & that Churchill had managed to burn his bridges by making mistakes while holding top positions.

In some ways Hitler's rebuilding of Germany wasn't as strong as it seemed, as a lot of investment was in the arms industry, so without getting to use them they economy would have overheated eventually.

Not supporting the welfare state was one of the reasons Churchill lost the 1945 election, but had changed his mind by 1951.

[Arran]

Re: The World at War

A factor that contributed to Germany losing the war was that Hitler had Parkinsons disease.

My mother thinks that Hitler escaped to Argentina but by the late 1940s the Parkinsons had completely wrecked him, so he was not in a fit state to establish the Fourth Reich there, and he died in the early 1950s.

It is probable that had WW2 never happened then the German public would have lost confidence in Hitler around 1945ish then kicked him out. The Parkinsons would also have put an end to his political career. Therefore it raises questions whether WW2 was really necessary or not as Hitler's days were probably numbered around 1939 anyway.

[Richard1978]

Re: The World at War

I've not heard of Hitler having Parkinson's disease before, but certainly by the end of the war he was looking like he had aged 20 years since 1939.

Considering the Nazis had managed to crush almost all opposition early on, it would have had to have been someone high up to have forced Hitler out.

[staffslad]

Re: The World at War

There is archive footage of Hitler presenting medals to members of the Hitler Youth on his birthday in April 1945 in the Reich Chancellry garden. He keeps one of his hands--can't recall which one--behind his back all the time as by that time it was shaking so much. Also remember that his doctor was a bit of a quack and was pumping him full of all kinds of drugs multiple times per day, which probably didn't help matters.

[tex]

Re: The World at War

There is archive footage of Hitler presenting medals to members of the Hitler Youth on his birthday in April 1945 in the Reich Chancellry garden. He keeps one of his hands--can't recall which one--behind his back all the time as by that time it was shaking so much. Also remember that his doctor was a bit of a quack and was pumping him full of all kinds of drugs multiple times per day, which probably didn't help matters.

PLUS OFCOURSE...he only had one ball

[Arran]

Re: The World at War

Some things that you have to take into account as a student of history:

1. Attitudes were more often than not different in the past. People saw things with different eyes, thought with different minds, and held different conventions and prejudices.

2. In an event of war, the official history is written by the victor.

3. Hitler was very much a product of his time and place, for his time and place. He was certainly a controversial individual at his best and a tyrant at his worse, but history is rarely Manichaean, so concluding that Hitler was a villain and Churchill was a hero is an unfaithful representation of what really happened.

[tex]

Re: The World at War

PLUS OFCOURSE...he only had one ball

Beginning to feel my contribution has no significance....Hmmph!