Was Winston Chuchill a Pagan
Churchill joins the Albion Lodge of Druids 1908
One thing that has always puzzled me is Churchill’s spiritual views. He was nominally baptised Church of England like most English people and also like most English people only seems to have set foot in a church for weddings and funerals.
He joined the Albion Lodge of the Ancient Order of Druids at his home Blenheim Palace in August 1908.
When in the army he decided to read the Bible, and borrowed one from a friend and after reading it for a week met his friend and told him “Isn’t this God of yours a total S*it!!”
He also once refered to religion as “a delicious narcotic”.
I’ve heard him called an athiest, an agnostic, a deists, a pagan, spiritualist and a having a personal relationship with god protestant. Any thoughts?
Crime Does Seem to Pay
Here’s a wonderful story about a Glasgow retiree who was perhaps the finest conman in history, selling Trafalgar Square, Buckingham Palace, the Eiffel Tower among others to tourists.
The Last Orientals – The Thai Sakdina System
One of the pleasures of visiting Thailand is the sense of the old you get, the various protocols and traditions from an age gone by that Thailand still enigmatically clings onto in the shadow of the postmodern skyline. Seen by tourists the girls that stand at the doors to restaurants and shops simply paid to bow to customers as they enter are something old worldly, to a local they are nothing strange, simply basic politeness. Many visitors are left wondering how within a country where anyone can don a suit and stroll through Siam Paragon, how every Thai seems to innately know their place within an almost Victorian class system of deference and aloofness.
When a tourist puts his first tentative step on terra firma and for every moment henceforth unwittingly he is immersing himself in a translucent ether of Sakdina that he will probably never become aware. Sakdina harks back to the dawn of Thailand and in the 21st century has called on all its adaptability to survive. 21st century Sakdina can be seen as many things; the amount of privilege a person deserves, seeing an expensive car drive by with a police escort leading it rudely gesturing for ordinary drivers to get out the way, the deference shown by a servant to his master or students lowering their heads when they pass a teacher by in the corridor. Sakdina is the division of the society into commoners and higher castes and the realisation that a Tuk Tuk driver, even if he saved his pennies and passed that Degree at Ramkanghang Open University, he would never be accepted in a job vacancy of government officer simply because of his low birth. Sakdina’s origins lie deep in Thai history.
Origins of Sakdina
Medieval Thailand was a sparsely populated land, remote regions separated by dense rain forests, many isolated villages were only accessible by river. For the fledgling Ayutthaya Kingdom sprawling across the centre of this domain, maintaining control over remote possessions was a constant challenge, regional lords often enjoyed far too much autonomy in the eyes of a greedy capital.
It was in the reign of King Borommatrailokkanat (1448-1488) that a formalised system was introduced designed to force even the most far-flung regions into line. King Trailok passed a series of laws that have resonated down Thai history to today and are probably the most influential royal commands issued in Thai history. Trailok introduced a governmental system which nowadays is known as the Sakdina System, but at the time were laws of Civil, Military and Provincial Hierarchies. The system itself was based upon a cultural and social order that had been practiced in much of the country at local level for centuries, Trailok made three important changes to this system, he expanded it, standardised it and centralised it.
Thai society had long been divided into two classes, the nobles and the masses, the Sakdina System clearly defined the roles within society of these two groups, how they would interact with each other and amongst themselves creating a strict social order based on the quantified worth of each individual. Rigid castes were formalised within the ranks of both nobles and commoners excluding only Chinese and women of non-noble birth who were considered without worth.
Owner & slaves
When first introduced the Sakdina System was mainly a system of social interaction, the worth of an individual determined how he should responsibly behave and the respect he was due from others. In the Thai language where the usage of pronouns and bowing are so important, a system of ranks made a simple indicator when people met as to if they were higher or lower status and how low or high to bow and how to address the other person. The system not only established how much respect a person deserved but also how much social responsibly they were supposed to take. People of higher birth were expected to live by higher standards. The system also established the relationship between noble and commoner, even free commoner, was that of master and slave, all free males 18-80 were required to submit themselves for 6-8 months to their landlord each year, service could be either civil or military.
However, the problem with a system of privilege, even one started solely to promote cordiality, is abuse. Status could be used for personal gain and corruption and this quickly began to happen with Sakdina. Abuses such as, if a person of lower worth committed a crime upon a person of higher Sakdina they would receive a sterner sentence than whereas if the situation was reversed a person of high worth would receive a lower sentence for hurting a person of low worth. Higher-ranking nobles also used their Sakdina to gain audiences with the king.
Everyone person in the country of caste was assigned a numerical rank according to their worth. With the lower ranks of commoners, it tended to be job defined ranks, however in most cases it was rank that determined what job you were eligible to do. Extensive lists were created in Trailok’s time which meticulously number ranked every job in the country. The main benefit of the system for the Kings of Ayutthaya the number of any individual was modifiable by the monarch, this gave the monarch ability to reward loyalty and punish disloyally giving him a more powerful hold over his subjects.
Sakdina literally translates to Field (Na) Power (Sakdi) and is often referred to as Thai Feudalism. One part of Sakdina often over emphasized is the land rights associated with it. The ranking number each person of caste in the country received was often referred to as ‘Rai,’ which is a land measurement. It has been suggested that a person received Rai of land equal to his Sakdina rank. So a Government Officer with a Sakdina of 225 would not only have a social standing of 225 but also be granted 225 Rai of land by the king. Sakdina numerical ranks were, Crown Prince 100,000 Rai, members of the Royal Family up to 50,000 Rai, ranks of Nobles 400-10,000 Rai depending upon position in government, Government Officials 50-400 Rai depending upon position in the administration, Craftsmen 50 Rai, Commoners 25 Rai, Slaves 5 Rai.
While the distribution of land along these lines is by far the most famous aspect of Sakdina, it may not have happened at all but rather using the word Rai to describe Sakdina may simply have been symbolic. This argument is supported by the fact areas of land were given Sakdina values and these don’t seem to correspond the real size of the land. A district may have only 10,000 Rai of actual land but be given a Sakdina value of 30,000 Rai to distribute amongst the inhabitants, suggesting the Sakdina Rai rankings were purely symbolic. That there was no land distribution is almost certain from the 16th century onwards when Chinese merchants, monks and married women of non-noble birth were given Sakdina numbers, leaving only unmarried peasant girls and Chinese labourers as without Sakdina.
A sizable proportion of the population had the ignominious status of having no Na. At first women who were not of noble birth were considered of no worth along with the sizable Chinese immigrant population. When the laws changed allowing married common women Sakdina she received it based of two factors, her husband’s Rai and her status as wife, 1st wives would receive more Rai than the 2nd and 3rd wives and so on. The wife would also gain or lose Rai depending upon the fortunes of her husband, even noble women with Rai of their own when married received Rai from their husband. Marriage to a husband of higher Rai meant she increased her Rai, a noble woman could also lower her Rai by marrying a man of lower Rai. Sakdina was not an entirely inflexible system for men either; men of lower caste could also raise their Rai through marriage to a noble woman. Also a father blessed with a beautiful daughter could to try to marry her to someone of high Rai and receive an increase in his rank in return.
Sakdina in Modern Times
Unlike in the west, Thai Feudalism didn’t die but grew stronger as it aged. In the reign of King Chulalok (1782-1809) the system was codified as a legal system called The 3-Seal Code and officially used in legal disputes to determine how much weight a person’s testimony carried, the higher the Rai, the more believable the witness’s testimony was considered in court, so a person commoner accusing a noble would have little chance.
As Thailand fell under western influence and capitalised in the 20th century this new system brought many changes to challenge the established Sakdina harmony. Business traditionally low caste became of greater importance, an educated middle class emerged, and people were able to raise their worth in society and lose it. Sakdina was a system of social stability but capitalism could be a system of fluidity. However Capitalism didn’t prove incompatible with Sakdina which was able to make concessions and accept new castes onto its hierarchy and able accept the changing of fortunes. Sakdina was also able to change capitalism, Traditionally Sakdina determined a person’s role in society by its caste system by limiting ability of lower castes to higher office, by doing this Sakdina ensured most capitalist success came to mostly to the high castes already at the top.
Sakdina was legally abolished as late as the 1932 coup, but refused to go away. Even the Fascist Dictator Phiboon Songkran Thailand’s most powerful ruler had a shot at ending it, but failed, discovering almost 800 years of history, deference and effeteness doesn’t pass easily and especially not in Thailand. There’s a saying “understand Sakdina and you understand Thailand”.
In politics Sakdina sets the relationship between Thai government and the people, not in the western idea of a civil service, serving the public, but a higher caste considering the public slaves to be governed by them. Sakdina continues in the attitude the people at the top of society should not be criticised by those lower than them and creates a culture of passive acceptance of authority everywhere, no matter how unjust or corrupt.
Sakdina is probably still the most powerful influence on the Thai psyche today and its legacy never more prevalent than in the Thai political crisis of the present. Nothing more than PAD’s argument for the overthrow of two democratically elected governments illustrates present day Sakdina, PAD arguing that the people who voted for the overthrown regimes were uneducated peasants not capable of judging who to vote for. The PAD argument is simply the people who voted for the Democrats may have been fewer in number but by being educated middle class were of higher caste and Sakdina so their opinion should count more. The movement even proposes to change the electorial system along Sakdina lines, where people votes in democratic elections should be weighted and poorers peoples votes carry less weight than te middle classes or wealthy.
We Are Not Alone
The Kepler Space Telescope a telescope specially made to look of planets orbiting other stars has had resounding success after looking at its first patch of sky.
The telescope has found 1,235 planets, of which 68 are earth size and 54 in the habitation zone meaning they would have roughly the same climate of earth.
THe remarkable thing about this is the telescope which can only see 1/400 of the galaxy and has only searched the minutest area has found so much. If these figures repeat themsevles across the galaxy that means there are millions of Earths alone. This is without counting moons of gas giants in the habitable zone which most likely would outnumber planets of this kind.
New Kepler Discoveries – Planetary News | The Planetary Society
Severus in Scotland
With movies like Centurion having come and gone and the Eagle playing now, with Agricola’s campaign resonably well known, I thought I’d bring up Rome’s forgotten intervention in Scotland, the largest and most important, as the emperor went. Why it’s forgotten has always been a mystery to me.
Following in the footsteps of Caesar, Claudius and Agricola, Roman Emperor Septimus
Severus and his son Caracalla led and invasion of Britain in 208, hoping for glory and to unite the island under Roman rule.
After putting down a rebellion in the North of England he crossed Hadrian’s Wall and entered Scotland. Leading 40,000 troops, the largest force in Britain since Claudius and at one point building a 170 acre marching fort, the largest anywhere in the world. However learning from Mons Grapius the Scots refused him battle instead inflicted a withering guerilla war on him. Severus fought his way through the guerillas to reach foot of the Highlands still without managing to tempt a battle or find a major settlement to attack.
In the Highlands things got worse as the guerilla war ended the Severus marched across the Highlands being completely ignored and barely seeing a soul. A year after crossing the wall he reached Aberdeen, still without fighting a battle. Realising his campaign had failed, and a Roman emperor that loses a war is a dead emperor Severus starting looking for a way out. Severus marched back out of Scotland and took refuge in York plotting revenge, intending to send his son Caracalla on a face saving second invasion. However sensing his weakness the north of the Britain went into revolt again and shortly after Severus fell ill and died with his utter failure haunting him.
A while back someone asked me, why didn’t the Romans conquer Scotland. Perhaps it’s because they couldn’t. There was just no infrastructure to attack. Also was it a mistake by Severus to take an army so overwhelmingly more powerful than the locals and hope to tempt them into battle. Agricola took an half the size and the Scots felt confident to disasterously attack that one.
Hitler Fried Chicken Anyone?
A little snap I took on my travels. Mix history with your meal. I wonder if the chicken’s kosher?
Stone Age Atlantis
Seems European civilisation began near the Isle of Wight.
Female Fuhrer
Rotha Lintorn-Orman
Introduction
The History of British Fascism tends to be dominated by Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, itself a very a-typical fascist organisation. However Baronet Mosley’s (touted as future British Prime Minister during his tenure in both the Labour and Conservative parties) conversion to Fascism didn’t occur until 1931 when he visited Mussolini in Italy and the British Union of Fascists wasn’t formed until 1932 a full ten years after Il Duce’s march on Rome and 6 years after Hitler had published Mein Kampf.
Mosley wasn’t Britain’s first taste of Fascism then, by far, few appreciate long before Mosley Britain had a flourishing right wing scene of would be Nazi’s and Fascists all trying to work out what these strange ‘continental’ ideologies were with varying degrees of quirkiness. By the 30’s such names as ‘Imperial Fascist League, the British Empire Fascists, the Fascist League, the National Fascisti, the Kensington Fascist Party, the Yorkshire Fascists, the Empire Fascist League, the Social Credit Greenshirts, the British Fascisti, the British United Fascists, the National Worker’s Party, the National Socialist League, the Nordic League and the Right Club.’ (1) Would have been common place in the right wing scene. It was one of these aforementioned groups, The British Fascisti, to whom the honour of being the first British fascist group falls.
Rotha Lintorn-Orman (left), mother Blanche (middle)
Illegal Girls Scouts
In 1908 Baden Powell formed the Boys Scouts, girls were forbidden to join Baden Powell feeling the activities too unladylike. However 2 years later at the first scout rally held at Crystal Palace he was surprised to see a troop of girl scouts march past him.
One of the scout mistresses responsible for this was Blanche Lintorn-Orman and one of the girls her 15 year old daughter Rotha Lintorn-Orman. The girls had got away with joining by only putting their first name’s initial on the application form and their deception had escaped notice by them being them located in rural Liphook far from any other scout organisation. The act forced Baden Powell’s hand, shortly after he formed a female version of the scouts and a year later young Rotha was leader of the only troop in the country with royal patronage, Princess Louise’s Own Bournemouth troop.
This act of female defiance seems to have been the first step in a life of breaching male social convention for the young Rotha Lintorn-Orman and gives us insight into the unique upbringing she had at the hands of her mother. We can also guess from the experience she developed a love of uniforms as for the rest of her life Lintorn-Orman was to either wear a British Army uniform, Red Cross uniform or the uniform of her own personal adult scout troop, to the ranks she would attract such figures as William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) and Maxwell Knight who Ian Fleming would include in his James Bond novels as ‘M’.
Rotha was the daughter of a British army major, but her grandfather was Field Marshall Sir John Lintorn Arabin Simmons and she grew up in a minor gentry household able to afford a servant. When World War One broke out like many women Rotha went to work, but unlike most she did it by joining the army as an ambulance driver serving in the Reserve Ambulance Corp and later the Scottish Women’s Hospital Corps with whom she won Croix du Chairite twice for bravery, serving on the Drins Front in Serbia. In 1917 she was invalided back home with malaria where she joined the Red Cross and became commandant of the Motor School at Devonshire House in charge of training ambulance drivers.
Epithany
In 1922 Mussolini marched on Rome at the head of his own troop of boy scouts, in Britain it caused heads more to shake than to turn at this strange form of foreign mysticism called Fascism, it was to have an a lasting effect on Rotha. Legend goes that Rotha was in her garden in her Somerset home planting vegetables and alarmed by the Labour Party, the growing influence of the trade union movement and Vladimir Lenin, when an epiphany struck her, to start a fascist party in Britain.
In early 1923 just a few months after Mussolini’s march to power Rotha placed several adverts in the right-wing journal, The Patriot, which read “Seeking Anti-Communists” and within a few weeks and most likely much too her surprise had over 200,000 anti-communists signed up and her mother signed over £50,000 of the family fortune to Rotha to run the movement
Rotha’s then does not only enjoy the unpresidented curiosity of being a woman who founded and lead a fascist party; in 1923 Britain was still months short of its third ever woman MP, women at that time only had limited suffrage (limited by age, wealth and education level) and only had that for 5 years. She was the first woman to found and lead a political party of any kind.
The British Fascisti
A Very British Fascisti
Rotha started the British Fascisti, but what exactly was a British Fascist? 10 Years later Oswald Mosley was to wrestle with this realising German and Italian forms were not really suited to Britain but it could be said at least Mosley understood what fascism was and why he was modifying it, what Rotha seems to have built is anything but a Fascist movement.
It’s often taken by modern readers as a derogatory put down that at the time many people said what Rotha wanted to create an adult scout troop. However early scouting was quite different to its modern counterpart. Scouts carried Union Jacks and Badon Powell had based the movement not on the militaristic Boy’s Brigade but the individualist thinking cadet corps he was in command of during the 2nd Boer War, scouting was about bushcraft, frontiersmenship and survival skills.
Pathe News
Film Footage of British Fascisti
Rotha’s idea of the role of the movement is perhaps the most unique thing about it and explains its unusual methods. She had a millenarian vent believing in the coming communist revolution in Britain and the Fascisti role was not so much to become a political force or take power but to try and create trained, disciplined, self sufficient people to get the country running again after a communist revolution. In this respect the image Rotha Lintorn-Orman’s had of her British Fascisti was akin to that of the survivalist movement in the US preparing for the post-holocaust.
The role of women in the Fascisti was equal to that of men, even training wise, female members complained they were expected to change the tyres on vehicles the same as men. While the suffragette movement had ended before Rotha grew up this didn’t stop her having strong opinions on equalising the voting rights for men and women. In fact while most of the suffragette movement had died the one area of radicalism old suffegettes continued in right wing politics, such as the Pankhurst’s Anti-Socialist League, in fact several former suffragette far right groups existed. Membership of the fascisti didn’t just attract proto-feminists but perhaps the most reactionary element of society, the legions of middle aged, middle class, reactionary military wives and widows. It’s unclear by how many the women in the British Fascisti outnumbered the men, but it was quite considerable. Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the British Fascisti was fascist feminism, as later Mosley’s Blackshirts had to tone down the sexist elements of British Fascism much to the derision of leading German Nazis on his visits, in fact 25% of Mosley’s Blackshirts themselves were female and so many women marched with him he had to ban female members form wearing matching black coloured skirts to stop the press dubbing his movement ‘the Blackskirts’.
Women Blackshirts
Politics wise was another curiosity as the British brain at that time didn’t really comprehend fascism, other European countries had the advantage of centuries of absolute monarchies, centralised governments or dictatorships in their recent history. Rotha later was to dislike Mosley’s calling him a communist. It’s quite ironic when the first fascist in Britain sees a man who does actually understand what fascism is and immediately thinks him a communist. The British Fascisti itself spent much of its efforts providing stewards for Conservative Party meetings which in those days were known to come under disruption from communists and socialists. The Fascisti also openly encouraged its members to vote Conservative and it’s two main political lines seem to have been the government should pass anti-union legislation and equal votes for women. In Feminine Fascism Julie V. Gottlieb even suggests the British Fascisti was a feminist response to the Primrose League. The club run since the 19th century for women Conservatives, whose entire leadership and committee were men. Also that Rotha who had seen how women had equal treatment during the war had decided uniforms was another way of female emancipation.
Perhaps then the British Fascisti can be considered an early vision of feminism. A uniformed, marching, tyre changing, Ju Jitsu fighting, millenarian, survivalist, Conservative voting, union jack flying, girl scout troop.
Organisation
The British Fascisti was more a paramilitary group than a political party, while it stood candidates, the pinnacle of its electoral success was winning just two local council seats. However on the professionalism of paramilitary side it put the British Union of Fascist to shame.
Fearing an imminent communist revolution the British Fascisti had adopted both paramilitary and intelligence wings. Its intelligence wing was run by Maxwell Knight who upon leaving the Navy had become impressed by Mussolini and joined the British Fascisti. Knight’s organised the intelligence wing of the British Fascisti so well he was noticed and recruited by MI5 to become Britain’s top spymaster and the figure ‘M’ in the James Bond movies is based upon him. Knight was said to have members of the Fascisti infiltrate the Communist Party, trade union movement and the Labour Party. Ironically just over a decade later as spymaster he would be sending his agents out to infiltrate the British Union of Fascist and other right wing groups, it was Knight who was responsible for the internment of many British Nazis and Fascists during the war, including Mosley and many of his former British Fascisti comrades. Knight was also the first member of MI5 to suspect the communist leanings of some of its members, however he wasn’t believed by his superiors, perhaps because his earlier membership of the British Fascisti had made them wary of any anti-communist claims by him. Finally it was Knight the former member of a political group lead by a woman who introduced women into MI5 on equal status to men. There had been a few before but he was seen as the man who did most to liberate the service.
The paramilitary wing of the British Fascisti run on strict military principles, members wore uniforms based upon Italian Blackshirts, it was divided into regional ‘troops’, district and county commands, a central command in London presided over by a chief of staff. Both men and women received the same military training including Ju Jitsu and survival techniques.
It was claimed there were 800 commands, with 200 to 500 members in each. When the commands took to organising street patrols from 1924, the highly unusual sight for the time of militaristic, marching and drilled groups of uniformed women was unleashed on the bemused British public. These women’s street patrol according to inteviews with x-members seem to have been one of the main draws for women members. During the general strike of 1926 the Fascisti’s female members were expected alongside the male to engage in violence if needed.
Rotha Lintorn-Orman
Alumni & Fall
Some quite notorious historical figures also passed through the ranks of the Fascisti, some who left to form of join more genuine Fascist or Nazi organisations such as William Joyce and Arnold Leese.
William Joyce, who defected to Germany at the outbreak of World War Two and became the infamous Lord Haw Haw got his facial scare while at a British Fascisti parade, he believed a Jewish Communist responsible and the incident is said to be the source of his fervant Nazism. Arnold Leese was a vet and militant vegetarian, teetotaller, animal rights activist perhaps the most fanatical anti-Semite Britain has ever produced, despite not believing Nazi racial theory and having no objection to Jews other than Kosher food. Leese who left the British Fascisti in 1924 and formed the Imperial Fascist League in 1928 claimed he found no Fascism in the British Fascisti, but “conservatism with knobs on”
The demise of the Fascisti came from being both too moderate for some and too extreme for others. A large section broke away in 1926 to join the male dominated, non fascist, Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies, the dispute being sex and politics based. Moderates feeling the Fascisti too extreme defected, but a lot women members not wanting to be under a male organisation stayed. Much more of the membership was lost to newer genuine fascist organisations disillusioned by the tame fascism, groups like the National Fascisti, Imperial Fascist League and a dozen more were to whittle away members.
When Mosley formed the British Union of Fascist, Union, was an idealistic term as he didn’t really have ideas of giving the other groups choice, those Fascist groups that refused to choose to unite with him, he would force to or destroy. The last large section of the Fascisti defected to Mosley lead by Neil Francis Hawkins in 1932, the remaining anti-Mosley Fascisti was down to 500 members and found themsleves under constant violent attack from the Blackshirts. Britain’s first Fascists were ultimately killed by Britain’s last.
Rotha received much criticism personally for her masculinity, never married, doing a man’s job and never being seen out of uniform. She herself would play Santa Claus at the Fascist Children’s Club Christmas parties and won a fancy dress contests dressed as a grandfather. Rotha also after World War One had increasingly become dependant on drugs and alcohol, like so many men who saw similar service she was most likely suffering shellshock and paranoia, the later of which may have fuelled her communist takeover scenario. Shortly before her death in 1935 at just 40, her mother cut off her allowance as she believed British Fascisti members were supplying her with drugs for cash.
Had she lived, unlike other prominent British Fascist leaders it’s doubtful she would have been interned during World War Two, a Home Office report in the 1930′s assessing the dangers to national security of the various organisations in Britain, reads it considered her a “harmless lunatic”.
(1) British Fascism and the Measures Taken Against It by the British State – David Botsford
Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement – Julie V. Gottlieb
A century of British Fascism – John Hope
The Last battle of the War of Three Kingdoms
The War of Three Kingdoms famous to most as a bloody series of revolutions and civil wars fought across Britain and Ireland in between 1638 and 1651 where dozens of factions all fought, allied, betrayed and re-allied against one another, where religious fanaticism married political radicalism and blatant opportunism, and a million people lost their lives. It all ended at the battle of Worcester in the west of England in 1651 when Oliver Cromwell defeated the invading Scottish Army of Charles II…………..Or so we’re told.
With Britain exhausted from over a decade of strife Cromwell’s regime was faced with the daunting prospect of re-igniting the economy. At that time the wealthiest place in the world was the West Indies and it was to the New World where Cromwell envisioned the restoration of Britain’s fortunes. Of course there was a problem, the West indies were mostly under the control of Spain, still the main enemy, not France since the days of Elizabeth. But now at last Britain finally possessed a land army to rival Spain: the New Model Army Europe’s finest fighting machine and the first modern army in the world since Roman times made up entirely of grizzled veteran soldiers and officers worked up through the ranks entirely on merit.
In 1654 Cromwell fired the first shot against Spain by occupying Santo Dominigo and then taking Jamaica soon after that and thus the Anglo-Spanish War of 1652-60 began at Cromwell’s instigation. Britain wasn’t alone in fighting Spain, as France was already at war with her, so quickly to two countries formed an alliance with 7000 New Model Army (or Ironsides as they had become known) troops were to France to bolster French armies fighting the Spanish, 3000 of these were included in the army of Vicomte de Turenne giving perhaps the finest general of the age the finest soldiers.
In 1658 Turenne was given the task of invading Flanders and seizing it from the Spanish, taking with him taking 15,000 troops including 3000 Ironsides he laid siege to the city of Dunkirk. The Spanish response was swift and within a few weeks an army under Don Juan of Austria with the Prince de Conde another great French commander as his military chief arrived to break the siege. Conde’s force also numbered 15,000 men and included a British contingent of 2000 Royalists in exile led by Charles II’s younger brothers, the Duke of York and Duke of Gloucester consisting of three regiments, two of English royalist and one Irish, though there were a good many Scots in all three.
Turenne seeing his siege about to be lifted decided to attack despite having only equal numbers. Conde caught somewhat by surprise by the haste in which Turenne marched on him elected to defend and sought out a viable defensive position, eventually settling upon almost flat area of beach. The position was sound with his right flank anchored by the sea and his left to a canal on the shore, only one notable terrain feature sat upon this otherwise completely flat battlefield. This was a large 150 foot tall sand dune, he saw this would give him some advantage over the enemy and deployed his line across it. He deployed his best Spanish infantry on top of it and considered it would be too costly for Turenne to attack as both armies were even in infantry and cavalry. Conde was confident in his position, with no way to flank the army and the right a strongly defensible position, Turenne would have to assault his centre and left where he could mass his troops in depth. Or so he thought.
Any ordinary commander would have been perturbed by the seemingly superior position of the Spanish, but Turenne was no ordinary commander and came up with one of the most cunning battle plans in history to defeat them. He knew the tide would go out in a few hours and he could charge his cavalry around the right flank of the Spanish through the retreating waves. But he also knew a great commander like Conde would quickly see this and expand his line to accommodate, so he had to prevent this. He elected to this with madness by doing the one thing Conde couldn’t have thought he was stupid enough to do, assault the dune. He would launch an attack across the centre and impenetrable right leaving his left weak against Conde’s strong left. This would look not only look incompetent to the Spanish tie up all his troops but it would tie up all their troops on their right and centre too so they could not fill the gap on their flank from the retreating tide. Then at the right moment he could strike. It was a hell of a gamble, but that’s maybe the only way one great commander can break an almost perfect defensive position of another.
Turenne began his assault tasking the Ironsides with the job of mounting the slope and assaulting the Spanish troops on the dune. Comde had deployed the British Royalist troops just to the left of the Dune, it seemed the two British contingents would be within sight of each other but not actually engage. Half the Ironsides began firing vollies into the Spanish at the top of the hill while the other half began to make their way up the Dune coming under withering fire from the Spanish defenders as they did, the casualties were horrendous but the Ironsides didn’t buckle and after upon reaching the summit both pike and musket launched a ferocious charge at the Spanish. For several minutes brutal hand to hand combat took place between the Spanish defender and Ironside attackers. Seeing this the Duke of York personally commanding the Royalists lead reinforcements up the hill to aid the Spanish and once again 7 years after the Battle of Worcester Roundhead fought Cavalier. However even with Royalist reinforcements it wasn’t enough and Ironsides fighting like tigers smashed through the Spanish and Royalist lines sending them fleeing down the dune in confusion. Ironside commander Morgan then rallied the Ironsides and managed to stop them pursuing, instead reforming them on top of the dune.
As the dune fell Turenne judged the sea was shallow enough launching his horse around the Conde’s right and to the rear of the bemused Spanish and Wallons. Almost instantly the right and some of the centre of the Spanish army facing infantry to the front and cavalry to the rear broke or surrendered without a fight with three notable exceptions, the three Royalist regiments who continued fighting, the reason being they were engaging the Ironsides that hadn’t assaulted the hill, for the second time that day Roundhead was meeting Cavalier, old scores were being settled and a ferocious musket and pike duel was ensuing, and aprivate battle taking place oblivious to events around them.
Meanwhile in an attempt the save the day Conde counter attacked on the left with everything he had and very nearly broke though, personally leading three cavalry charges and having his horse shot beneath him he broke through the French right and almost looked like doing the same the Turenne’s right as had been done to his, but for one stubborn regiment of French guards who held ground in porcupine formation firing vollies into his cavalry foiled him.
Conde knew when he was beaten and set about saving what remained of his army and personally organised the retreat saving half his army. Meanwhile the only remaining formed units of his force on the field, the Royalists, were locked in bloody battle with the Ironsides, finally realising the situation they were now surrounded, alone and facing the entire French army they agreed to surrender, but not to the Ironsides, instead to the French regiments that had now moved up on them and that they become French not Ironside prisoners.
Two of the great generals of French history had met, Conde and Turenne, in an almost even battle where one of the great tactical manoeuvres in history was executed to perfection, both these forces with a small contingent of British troops fighting old grievances that spanned two decades and were still boiling strong. How strong this was and how much more ferociously the British troops engaged one another than the French and Spanish can be illustrated by the battle figures. Of the 1000 Spanish casualties over half came from the 2000 Royalists, two of the three regiments were completely destroyed. Of the 400 French casualties most of them came from the Ironsides. For the French and Spanish it was almost a delicate eighteenth century battle of manoeuvre where one army outwitted by another and seeing the position futile gracefully retreated or surrendered. For the British it a was a blood curdling enraged slaughter session where two hated foes tore shreds out of one another as part of a 20 years long vendetta.
After the battle Dunkirk fell to Turenne, who was criticised later by Napoleon for not using this victory as momentum to march on and capture Brussels. Some of the Ironsides stayed to garrison Dunkirk while the rest campaigned on in Belgium for another year, though never to meet another Royalist. Dunkirk and Mardyke became part of Cromwell’s Commonwealth until sold to France in 1662. The Anglo-Spanish War along with the Franco-Spanish War were the conflicts that finally broke the Spanish Empires back, never again would Spain be a force. Britain annexed Jamaica and used it as springboard to control of the Caribbean, the richest prize in the world for the British Empire before India.
Appeasing Hitler, Was it Correct?
WWII two still isn’t an entirely historical subject. Many of the records are still classified by governments. Telling of the events are still highly political and the way children are educated about it interfered with by states. People who theorise about it in the wrong way are even jailed in certain countries. WWII is not just history it is still current affairs and what comes in hand with that, propaganda. So we can never necessarily take the mainstream view read without the appliance of a lot more scepticism than other more historical subjects. In this piece I’m going reassess one such subject. One promoted so much by the media and education system you would think it can’t possibly be challenged, but here I will challenge it. The topic is Appeasement, that most reviled of pre-war practices and I am going to ask if the appeasers got it right and Churchill wrong.
Britain’s actions in the early part of the war and are usually portrayed in one way, something we are taught to regard with reverence that being Churchill’s defiance in face of the Nazis and his accompany patriotic speeches about beaches and white cliffs. Even to ask if this was a mistake smacks of heresy and the metaphorically bonfires are lit minds before the speaker has even finished talking. But I’m going to persevere and propose Churchill was a mistaken and not only that but the thing we are religiously evangelised to disbelieve such as Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement, was a good thing.
What is Appeasement?
First when people think of appeasement, they think of simpering spineless politicians giving in to Hitler demands of weakness. If they give him a little, he won’t take more. This is the way we have been told to think of appeasement and few of us have questioned if this is actually what it was. Did the politicians really believe Hitler wasn’t an Oliver Twist and wouldn’t ask more? Even the most naive mind when asked to explain these facts couldn’t but wonder the absurdity of how could people with such simplistic views ever come to rule a superpower. But people don’t wonder this but accept a distortion they have been fed by the disciples of Churchill instead.
So what is appeasement really? Simply put it is Machiavellian politics. In the political Realpolitik, the situation in Europe was quite clear to Anglo-French politicians. Two evils not one existed, the USSR and Nazi Germany. These two powers had an intense and seemingly irreconcilable dislike for one another. Hitler had proclaimed in Mein Kampf he intended to invade the Soviet Union and everything that was happening in Germany seemed to confirm this.
So face with this reality, what would the good Machiavellian do? Harry Truman before he was president provided probably the best answer. He proposed supporting and supplying whichever country the war was going worse for until that country got on top then swapping sides, and continue doing this until both countries are completely ruined. Appeasement then was two things, doing nothing to stop the inevitable war between Germany and Russia and if possible doing everything in your power to promote it.
The doing nothing to get in the way involved doing many Machiavellian things, such as turning a blind eye to Hitler’s domestic and international policies, even the betrayal and sacrifice of Czechoslovakia. This was the game Chamberlain was playing, hardly a wimp out, instead utter cold blooded ruthlessness.
Appeasement Goes Wrong
So where did it go wrong? There were a number of factors. While one can be laid directly at Chamberlain’s feet, he lost his nerve, many others were beyond his control.
The intelligence agency Abwehr, Germany’s pre-war security service, anti-Nazi, and out of Himler’s control, answering directly to Hitler was able to report that they had successfully spied on the Russian government and were able to ascertain the Russians were completely aware of the aims of British appeasement and determined to thwart them by avoiding war with Germany. This lead to Hitler dispatching von Ribbentrop to Moscow to meet Molotov and the German/Russia treaty was signed, prompting Hitler upon hearing the news to declare, “I’ve got them”.
It’s been pointed out that Hitler was the least trustable treaty breaker in Europe, and Stalin a sufferer of extreme paranoia. So why did Stalin ever trust Hitler? In fact Stalin trusted Hitler so much that when the Germans built up three armies on the Soviet border, Stalin had some of his reconnaissance aircraft crews sentenced to death for reporting the built up as traitors for lying about his ally, and when the invasion took place for the first few hours orders came from him directly to front line troops not to fight back as it was a mistake and Germans would never attack them.
So a chain of unexpected events that could never have happened in the wildest imaginings of the Machiavellian British appeasers. The fact was no-one in Britain or France could even conceive of the Germans and Russians signing a treaty and it came as such a shock to them it panicked them, the whole Machiavellian strategy they had been pursuing seemed to crash about their ears.
It was at that point Chamberlain lost his resolve and drew a line in sand in Poland and was swept to war by the country, rather than sacrifice the Polish pawn too as he should have done. As history shows, it turned out the be a rather futile and misconceived gesture. If we think for a moment, what would have happened had Chamberlain kept his nerve? What if he hadn’t drawn a line in the sand in front of Poland, rather whispered in Hitler’s ear, it’s yours if you want it?
British ears had not heard Hitler say upon Ribbentrop’s news “I’ve got them” and they faced for the first time the idea the two countries would not go to war. This was a mistake but was it a mistake Talleyrand or Richelieu would have made, two men who would have been appeasers themselves and had a healthy disdain for Churchill. Would they have held their nerve, written off the German/Russian treaty as meaningless or even read it as the Machiavellianism it was, most likely.
Had the appeaser kept their nerve, Poland sacrificed history tells us Hitler would have attacked Russia a year earlier, a stronger Russia as many note and Truman’s utterly divisive scenario could have been enacted and 4 years later the British and French armies could have marched unopposed from Berlin to Moscow trampling on the putrid rotting corpses of 80 million German and Russian men, women and children and the charred tundra that is all that remains of two countries utterly eviscerated back into the stone-age.
Appeasement Goes Right
As much as appeasement failed diplomatically, lost to the public is its success militarily as it won the Battle of Britain. While chamberlain was holding off fighting Hitler one thing not even his worse critics deny is he put the British economy on a war footing, something Germany didn’t do until 1943. He also did it well, recognising the importance of the air wing over other arms all eager for to be the major recipient. It was this emphasis on planes that saved Britain in the Battle of Britain.
The military importance of the delaying can’t be emphasized than in these statistics. Chamberlain is often criticised over Czechoslovakia 1938, but these figures should make the ludicrous of this apparent.
In 1938 the time of Czech invasion, all UK fighters were biplanes until December 1938 when the first 4 Hurricanes were delivered. By mid 1939 500 were delivered.
Combat Aircraft production
Year……..Britain………Germany
1939……. 3,161……… 1,476
1940……. 7,771……… 6,201
1941……. 11,732……. 7,624
1942……. 16,102……. 11.266
Total Modern Combat Aircraft in airforces.
Year……… Britain……….. Germany
Sept 39…… 1,660………… 2,916
Aug 40……. 2,913………… 3,015
Dec 41……. 4,287………… 2,561
Dec 42……. 5,257………… 3,440
In 1938 Britain wasn’t capable of conducting an air war with Germany. By 1939 the RAF was half the size of the Luftwaffe but building planes at twice the rate. By the end of 1940 both sides were even and after that the RAF left the Luftwaffe behind.
Appeasement the Sequel
After the fall of France the supporters of appeasement raised their voices again in support of an armistice with Germany. While first wave appeasers like Chamberlain are misrepresented as gullible fools not Machiavelians who lost their nerve, the second wave of appeasers are reviled in modern history books that idolise Churchill’s unwavering self righteousness, as traitors. It’s certainly true but disproportionately publicised a few who argued for the armistice had Nazi leanings, many more though less publicised had more nationalistic British sentiments than Nazi arguing why should we let an ideologue like Churchill destroy and bankrupt the empire to save a bunch of inferior foreigners. Many of the appeasers were just pragmatists advocating sensible realpolitik who saw the wisdom of a regrouping and unmolested arms build up.
Hitler of course had a completely unrealistic view and even imagined Britain supporting him in his invasion of Russia, so why not play on this. So I ask what if our Machiavellian appeasers not Churchill gained control of the country? Could they not have signed the peace treaty, patted Hitler on the back and said we’ll be right behind you all the way to Moscow, even nudge him forward in that direction, said here we’ll even sign a treaty saying so…….. All the time holding a poisoned dagger behind his back and knowing the moment the first German troops set for on Soviet soil the alliance treaty to becomes used in the next Downing Street bowel movement.
Conclusion
When I began this piece I hoped to show that if the appeasers had kept their nerves or run the war not Churchill, it would have gone better for Britain. Certainly not in a noble way. No glorious sacrifice of the empire on history’s last great crusade, but an “et tu brute” or rather “et tu Großbritannienon” on the ides of April.
Appeasement these days is portrayed as the strong Churchill vs. the weak appeasers, this is a terrible misrepresentation, it is a much more familiar contest that took place, one taking place in the parliaments of all nations on earth today, one between the ideologues and the Machiavellians. The dreamers blindly and deafly targetting what they believe and those who manipulating their way to what they realistically can get.
