Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Five Days in London

Over the weekend I read a theatre review in The Daily Telegraph about a new play called Three Days In May which is about the extraordinary 72 hours in May 1940 when, after the defeat of France, the British War Cabinet debated doing a deal with Hitler. The villain of the piece is Lord Halifax representing the Nazi-loving English aristocracy who thought an arrangement could be made with the Fuhrer. The hero of the piece is Churchill who saw exactly what kind of a man Hitler was and knew that if Britain capitulated or surrendered it would become a slave state. 
...
The play is largely based on an amazing history book I read a few years ago called Five Days In London by John Lukacs. As Publishers Weekly explains in its summary: 
...
Lukacs posits that it was during those five days in London "that Western civilization, not to mention the Allied cause in WWII, was saved from Hitler's tyranny...Had Britain stopped fighting in May 1940, Hitler would have won his war...Thus he was never closer to victory than during those five days in May 1940." A quarter-million British troops were trapped by the Germans at Dunkirk. The British public, ill-informed about this reality, remained apathetic, and the War Cabinet was divided over what action to take. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had yet entered the war, but Churchill resolved to fight "till Hitler is beat or we cease to be a state."


I don't know what the play is like but the book is absolutely riveting. You don't need to be a big fan of alternative history to posit a scenario whereby Britain makes peace with Hitler; Germany attacks Russia with the full Wehrmacht (unbogged down in Africa or anywhere else) and easily wins. In Lukacs's book the tension between Halifax and Churchill all boils down to one cabinet meeting where Churchill told his cheering colleagues that he would rather die in the last ditch than make a separate peace. The cabinet refused to make a deal, somehow a quarter of a million men got evacuated from Dunkirk and the British won the Battle of Britain. By October 1940 Britain was still alone but feeling a lot more sure of itself and any deal with the Nazis was off the cards. By June 1941 Hitler invaded Russia and by December 1941 the war was effectively lost because Zhukov beat the Germans at the gates of Moscow and Hitler foolishly declared war on the USA. I find Lukacs's view pretty compelling...if Churchill had wobbled or been less than convincing in that climactic cabinet meeting in May 1940 then perhaps the thousand year Reich would have become a horrifying reality. 

14 comments:

Cary Watson said...

I'm definitely getting that book. I recently finished Nemesis by Max Hastings, which is about the war in the Pacific. It's superb, and has some really interesting stuff about Australia's surprisingly (to me)shambolic effort in the war.

Anonymous said...

Its certanly a fascinating point in history. Almost a fluke that Churchill was even PM for the war years, or could be said it was his destiny. Not sure there is evidence for a Nazi loving aristocracy is there? Don't think the population knew much about the scale of the nazi problem. Have you been to the war museum waste a few hours in there easy.

Anonymous said...

I meant to say in comment above that this play actually looks worth seeing. Beacuse the meeting in the cabinet room and speeches take place in one room that might work well in a play. Just depends how good churchill is.

Frankie

adrian mckinty said...

Cary

I read Nemesis. Hastings is pretty brutal isnt he? He says the whole Philippines campaign was probably a waste of time, men and resources, which is a bit depressing considering the loss of life there. But I liked his careful consideration of Hiroshima. He felt that is was absolutely necessary to drop the bomb because the Japanese war cabinet were determind to fight on.

I'm not so convinced by his reasoning on Nagasaki however. I dont see why we couldnt have given the Japanese an additional week before droping A bomb number 2.

adrian mckinty said...

Frankie

Probably not the whole aristocracy no, but many influential aristos were fans of Hitler and the Nazis. Diana Mosley, the Duke of Windsor and that crowd I suppose.

Cary Watson said...

Yeah, Hastings doesn't pull punches. He really puts the boots to McArthur. The military historian Basil Liddell Hart argued that the A-bombs weren't necessary because the U.S naval blockade was strangling Japan and they would have collapsed or capitulated within months. Armageddon by Hastings is also excellent.

seana said...

I agree with Frankie that this sounds like an excellent premise for a play. I hope they pull it off.

adrian mckinty said...

Cary

I think Hastings is a bit pathological when it comes to the Australian contribution to WW2 in Nemesis and apparently he goes there again in his new book on the subject. Here in Australia the Aussie contribution to WW2 is absurdly exaggerated but Hastings goes too far the other way.

I think its wildly optimistic to assume that the Japanese would have capitulated because of bombing and a naval blockade. They would certainly have lost the war regardless but it would have been after Operation Downfall and probably a million allied and 10 million Japanese dead.

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

Me too. And it would make a good film as well probably if they can get Churchill right. Which they didnt with The Kings Speech.

seana said...

No,Churchill was the weakest link castingwise.

Dan said...

Weird...Im reading a book by NIall Ferguson called Virtual History and am looking at how he handles what would have happened had Halifax had not acted on information about Hitler's intentions..
I must read Lukacs!

Frank said...

Check out Brendan Gleeson in the HBO film Into the Storm. He's not a half bad churchill.

adrian mckinty said...

Dan

Yeah I read that one. Its pretty good. I also rec What If?

adrian mckinty said...

Frank

Watched it on youtube last night. Yes he was excellent. Nice little drama that.