Alianora:
"'As evil waxes, the very man who stand for good will in their fear use ever worse means o' fighting, and therefore give evil a free beachhead.'
"Holger thought of his own world, where Coventry had been avenged upon Cologne, and nodded." (pp. 71-72)
But people can create symbols for completely contradictory circumstances. St Paul's Cathedral surviving the Blitz boosted morale and symbolized proud resistance whereas Coventry Cathedral destroyed but later rebuilt came to symbolize peace and reconciliation. In Britain, the Dunkirk evacuation symbolizes not defeat and retreat but rescue and survival - waxing evil transfigured.
11 comments:
As Churchill mentioned, "wars are not won by retreats".
Kaor, Paul!
That picture of St. Paul's cathedral framed by billowing clouds of smoke is rightly famous as a symbol of British defiance.
I'm also glad Westminster cathedral also escaped destruction.
Strictly speaking, the Dunkirk evacuation was a retreat. The UK's army in France had been defeated by the Germans alongside the French. But, while forced to abandon heavy weapons/equipment, it was a fighting retreat by the British, with the BEF refusing to surrender to Germany. Retreat, to fight on and win in the future.
I think Hitler made a bad mistake, not ordering the Wehrmacht to relentlessly press the pursuit of the BEF, preventing most of it from reaching Dunkirk. But he was still hoping to make a deal with the UK, ending the war on terms favorable to Germany.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: if Halifax had been PM instead of Churchill -- and Churchill nearly died half a dozen times between 1914 and 1940 -- then a deal would have been made.
That's what Hitler wanted. He didn't intend to conquer the world -- he thought his successors would.
What he wanted was to conquer -Europe-.
A short sharp campaign that would cast France down, a deal with Britain that would isolate Europe from America, and then to turn on the Soviet Union.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, and I think the best chance Hitler had of getting that kind of deal would have been by destroying the BEF. And by the Luftwaffe focusing on destroying the RAF, rather being distracted by pointless attacks on civilian targets. That took the pressure off an RAF strained to the breaking point.
A UK with no effective army/RAF would very likely not have been able to stop a German invasion. Churchill would either not have been PM at all or forced to resign and be replaced by someone agreeing to make that disastrous deal with Hitler.
And Operation Barbarossa much more likely to succeed. Nightmare scenarios!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yup, Hitler was very smart and had a winning strategy. Fortunately, he was emotionally uncontrolled and wouldn't give up his attack on the USSR when the strategy bollixed up.
This illustrates the role of accidents in history. If Churchill had been killed in that traffic accident in NYC in 1930 -- and he very nearly was -- Halifax would probably have been PM in 1940.
At Dunkirk wasn't the German army stretched thin in terms of getting fuel food and ammunition to it? I've also seen the claim that the German military used a lot of amphetamines which helped keep them going a *bit* longer, but that couldn't be maintained.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Exactly, Hitler made the fatal mistake of letting impatience and his emotions overrule his better judgement. Barbarossa should have waited till the war with the UK was settled.
I still get the impression Halifax didn't want to be PM in 1940, that both major parties, Tories and Labour, would have to beg him to take office as PM.
Jim. I don't know, I would need to see what Churchill wrote about that in his history of WW II. I am sure logistics was a problem for the Wehrmacht.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: He didn't want to, but thought he was the one with a clear-sighted grasp of the strategic situation. In a sense, he was right -- Churchill was absurdly over-optimistic. Chance turned out to be in favor of Churchill!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Just glad Churchill's romantic over-optimism was vindicated, and the UK did not accept Halifax's seemingly more sensible POV.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Churchill was inspiring, Halifax wasn't -- grimly realistic, instead. Inspiration is what people need in a war, though it can be overdone.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! In times of war and peril nations need to have leaders capable of inspiring them, keeping their hearts up, making them determined to fight on. Both Churchill and George VI did that.
I fear I am nothing like them, more a hard and grimly realistic type, like Halifax.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment