The myth has taken over - by Richard... Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The myth has taken over - by Richard... Tuesday, September 14, 2010

As we approach 15 September, the date chosen as "Battle of Britain day", we have been getting wall-to-wall programmes about various aspects of the battle. But nothing can be more moving than to watch survivors of the battle give their accounts of their experiences.

It is indeed brilliant to be able to watch these men and women, but while their accounts are offered as a taste of the "real thing", very great care should be taken before accepting the narratives offered as anything other than what they are, personal reminiscences. They are not necessarily to be relied upon as history.

What especially underlines this point is a passage in the first chapter of a remarkable book called London under London (pictured). This gives a graphic account of what it calls the "underworld war" – the story of the London Blitz from an underground perspective – and readily admits than much of what passed was "ugly and vile".

But it also gives an account of the founder of an organisation called "Mass Observation”, a certain Tom Harrisson who in 1937 set up a project to study of the everyday lives of ordinary people in Britain. He kept it going through the second world war and the data collected by the observers form a unique and invaluable social record of what went on.

But the fascinating thing is that, in 1975 – a year before he was killed in a traffic accident - Harrisson contacted as many of the original Mass Observers as he could find. He asked them to rewrite from memory what had happened during the Blitz. He then compared the two descriptions.

His conclusion was stark: "There is little or no logical relation between the two sets of accounts, 34 years apart. Memory has glossified and sanctified these 'finest hours'". The accuracy had gone and the myth had taken over.

And therein lies a vitally important point. By all means enjoy – treasure, even – the myths. We all need our myths, as do nations, as a way of navigating through the traumas of life. But never fall into the trap of confusing the myth with reality.

As regards the Battle of Britain, from a brutally objective point of view, it is probably the case that the last person to ask for an accurate overview of what was going on at the time is a fighter pilot engaged in the battle. Engrossed in the life and death drama, the perspective is necessarily incredibly narrow and limited.

Something of this comes over from a remarkable interview with Battle of Britain pilot, WH "Dizzy" Allen, who spent nearly two years watching the sun come up. He, himself, regards much of the "hype" as over-blown.

The crucial issue, though, is that these men gained their broader appreciation of the battle in the same way that we do – second-hand. But what also must be recognised is that the original narrative for the Battle of Britain was crafted in 1941, without consulting the two main players, Park and Dowding.

That narrative was political, distorted and specifically intended to make partisan points – without even the perspective that the passage of time brings. Yet that narrative has survived virtually unchanged and has been glossified and sanctified as the Battle of Britain myth. The myth has taken over - but it isn't history.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

A bit of sense - by Richard... Monday, September 13, 2010

According to The Daily Telegraph today (a lot of Telegraph today, but that's the way the cookie crumbles), a senior former American national security adviser, Robert Blackwill, has warned that the Taliban are "winning" and the foreign forces are "losing" in Afghanistan. He thinks that the country should be partitioned along ethnic lines by pulling back NATO forces to deal with the problem.

Blackwill, who was Condolezza Rice's deputy as National Security Adviser in 2003 to 2004, will reportedly deliver a speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies think tank in London on Monday, urging President Barack Obama to make changes in the war's objectives.

He further stated that the surge of forces launched in 2009 to stabilise Afghanistan was "high likely" to fail and that the death toll in the conflict was too high a price to pay. "The Taliban are winning, we are losing. They have high morale and want to continue the insurgency. Plan A is going to fail. We need a Plan B," is saying. "Let the Taliban control the Pashtun south and east, the American and allied price for preventing that is far too high," he adds.

According to Blackwill, the US should only seek to defend those areas dominated by Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities by pulling out of bases in the south.

This is a start. It is about the most intelligent thing that has been said on Afghanistan for a while. As a solution, it is highly problematic, not least because it would not stop there. The new Pashtunistan would then immediately demand abolition of the Durand line frontier and re-integration with the FATA and Northwest frontier areas, thus putting Pakistan on the rack.

It would also upset India, which would not necessarily be able to use Afghanistan as a second front, maintaining its proxy war to keep Pakistan destabilised. Everything would depend on the status of the new Pashtunistan and its relationship with Pakistan.

However, now that someone is thinking what amounts to the unthinkable, maybe we could start to see some movement. Experience suggests, though, that it would be unwise to hold breath. My guess is that India would almost certainly block such a move, which means that Karzai would support his paymaster and be agin it. Britain would fall into line with the land of Pachauri.

The idea is a bit of sense, which - on reflection - probably means its a non-starter.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

And yet more stupidity - by Richard...

This time, it is here in The Daily Telegraph, plus this, the first of a series in the search for a defence strategy.

In promoting its series, the paper invokes the spirit of Churchill, proudly displaying his photograph (above), perhaps unaware that the great war leader's primary foreign policy objective in the early days of the war was to get the United States to join in on the side of the British Empire. This, perforce, would then require the UK to conform with US defence policies, which became the case.

The point, of course, is that defence policy is always determined by foreign policy and thus subordinate to it. And in this instance – and especially with the Lisbon treaty – our foreign policy is determined by or in agreement with the European Union. Our defence policy, therefore, has to depend on EU policy in this area.

The secondary point which emerges, therefore, it that it is was waste of time and effort talking about strategy, without reference to foreign policy, and thence the primary requirement is to ensure that the strategy conforms with and thus supports the foreign policy.

Such things are so basic that those who ignore them can, quite rightly, be accused of stupidity. But there is probably something more sinister here – the wilful refusal of the establishment to confront its own mistakes and admit that we are no longer an independent nation, able to determine either its foreign or its defence policies.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Nothing quite so stupid as a Tory - by Richard...

... unless, of course, you include all the other politicians – and leader writers. However, in the serried ranks of stupidity, what comes storming to the front today is the administration's promise of a "referendum lock" on new EU powers, the legislation for which is to be introduced today.

This, of course, is a consolation prize for the Tories reneging on their promise of a referendum on Lisbon. For once, though, William aka "Bill" Cash has got it right, describing it as "just milk and water". It is "a million miles away from what is required," he says.

The terminal flaw in the initiative is that its authors fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the EU and how it works. Thus, they blather about requiring a referendum whenever there is a proposed transfer of power, in which context we are promised a referendum in the event of another treaty.

Where the understanding fails is that the treaties are more in the nature of enabling acts, which hand over rights to make legislation in particular policy areas, or "competences". The actual transfers of power come when the EU exercises those rights and actually makes the legislation, be it regulations or directives or whatever.

Thus, "lock" or not, the transfer of powers will continue regardless, most often with the approval of the Tories who are as a matter of policy wholly supportive of the "project". But then, they have never understood the EU – and never will. Their corporate stupidity is famous throughout the land, and it is not going to change now.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The art of propaganda - by Richard...

Melanie Phillips is firing on all cylinders about the working time directive and junior doctors. "Once, British citizens died to defend the sovereign powers of Parliament. Now they are dying because Parliament gave those powers away — and all without a shot being fired," she writes.

This is an issue that also gets the Europhiles squibbling, rushing to the defence of their precious construct as they realise that this is an issue that could turn public sentiment against their heroes.

They point out that there are subtleties and complications to the way the legislation is implemented, which means that the EU is not entirely to blame (or at all in the minds of some of the little darlings).

But who cares. This is a propaganda game. There are many things which the EU does for which it completely escapes blame, so it is a kind of rough justice if it gets blamed for things for which it is not entirely responsible. On this, one can take the advice of Hitler:

A lie that is a good lie (that is, an effective one) is always a better lie if it is a whopper! The capacity of the masses for absorbing an idea is limited. So make it simple. And give it to them in black and white, no half-tones! For otherwise you miss the entire purpose of propaganda, which is to present a clear view of the situation on which the masses are willing to act.

The important point of this counsel is "make it simple" – give it to the masses in "black and white, no half-tones!" A generation brought up on "strictly", "corrie" and "big brother" is not going to be into sophistication any more than were its predecessors. The message: "EU kills" is as good as any, and conveys the essence of the message we want to convey. It obeys the Hitler rules, so you can see why the Europhiles would get heated.

Actually, the ultimate irony here is that Hitler framed his rules after evaluating British techniques. Looking at the way they handled the First World War, compared with the Germans, he wrote:

How well the British understood the way to appeal to the idealistic side of men! While Germany fought for daily bread, Britain fought for ‘freedom’ – not even for herself but for little nations! The German propagandists had not the slightest conception of the nature of the forces which lead men to their death of their own free will. When a man fights only to fill his belly he quickly comes to the situation when he will fight – or not fight – for anyone who will provide that much for him.

It was thus that he framed his advice on using the big lie, the "whopper". Small lies tend to get found out. Big lies – like "government is good for you" - are the ones that survive. Nazi propaganda was successful only in the sense that the Germans had learnt to emulate British techniques.

Melanie Phillips, a Jewess, might thus be accused of using Nazi propaganda techniques in her current piece and in her clear determination to "make it simple" perhaps she is. But the crucial thing to bear in mind is that Hitler learned his lessons from the masters. We need to do likewise. How about this for a slogan:

The EU kills – kill it before it kills you!

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Who governs Britain? - by Richard...

In the Daily Mail today, we see the spectre of a new "winter of discontent", or perhaps something worse. The newspaper is reporting that unions are joining forces for a series of co-ordinated strikes that will bring Britain to a juddering halt. By working together for maximum impact, they say the country would be crippled by strikes, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful protest against government cuts.

At the leading edge, however, are two union giants – the Public and Commercial Services Union and Unison, with a combined membership of 1.7million. It is they that will this week sign a deal to co-ordinate the action.

But, while the public service unions may now have considerable power, it is unlikely that they can garner anything substantial in the way of public support. In fact, most people would see a strike by – say – civil servants in the tax department as an unalloyed good.

The union's target here, of course, is the government, and this could be seen as another "who governs Britain" contest, revisiting the Heath era, then stretching into the first Thatcher era and her epic battle with the miners. But Cameron is no Thatcher and, even if he was, his administration lacks legitimacy and popular support.

As to who governs Britain, it isn't Cameron and his merry men. We are ruled by an amalgam of Brussels, Whitehall, quangos and totally unaccountable local authority fiefdoms, all bolstered by endless, anonymous tranzie organisations such as Codex Alimentarius, most of which no one in the "strictly/corrie" belt has ever heard of.

When it actually comes to answering the question, "who governs Britain?", therefore, it is almost impossible to give a straight answer. But the worst of it is that most people care not at all. Even fewer people feel they owe any loyalty to the denizens of Westminster.

Rather than a great re-run of the Thatcher era, this takes on the perspective of two bald men fighting over a comb. The real pity is that they both can't lose. But even if the unions win, there is not the money to support their ambitions and the bloated public payroll, so they can only end up presiding over a bankrupt country.

Thus, for the ordinary Joe, this "titanic" battle is going to be an interesting one, only inasmuch as none of us have a dog in the fight. Who comes out on top is a matter of supreme indifference.

COMMENT THREAD