Tim Bouverie's Allies at War recounts the fall-outs and reconciliations of The Big Three with sensitivity and wit
A new star is born. The British firmament of modern political and military history is already a glittering one, but established names must now make way for a new companion, Timothy Pleydell-Bouverie. His first book, Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War, was a deserved success. His second, Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler, proves that his debut was no flash in the pan.
Bouverie's scope is wide, taking in the history of those relationships, which lay behind the creation and maintenance (just) of the greatest military alliance the world has ever seen: the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. We start with British policy based on the presumed rock of the French army; with Stalin supporting the German economy and war machine after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact; and with western outrage at Russia's invasion of Finland in 1939. In London sits the unpleasant figure of Joseph Kennedy Sr, the US ambassador, delighting in what he foresaw as the inevitable defeat of Britain. We end with the total victory of the Big Three: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, the last now our beloved Uncle Joe. And Poland, for whom we first went to war, betrayed.
Churchill understood that winning would be, for the democracies, a matter of maintaining public support. He often drove the chiefs of staff mad with schemes that made no sense at all in military terms, but were designed to build pride in the honour of the cause for which free people were fighting. Churchill's ludicrous plot for a second British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to return to France after Dunkirk; his insistence on the doomed defence of Greece and his unswerving defence of France (in spite of all Charles de Gaulle's insults) – all these derived partly from his sense of chivalry but also partly from his understanding that people had to believe in what they were fighting for: survival, yes, but honour, too.
In the period when the British Empire was fighting alone, it was vital to show the likes of doubting US ambassador Kennedy that we would fight, and would not be defeated. We were not the lost cause that the isolationists claimed. A good many desperate enterprises were undertaken to demonstrate that we were serious, including the partial destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir – allies who were friends only weeks before. In what is news to this reviewer at least, Bouverie shows that Churchill had cleared this with Roosevelt in advance.
After Hitler's invasion of Russia, and then following Pearl Harbour, the great alliance – which in the end would defeat the Axis forces, was formed. In his book, Bouverie lays clear both its strengths and its weaknesses. Its strength was their common enemy; its weakness was their irreconcilable post-war aims.
Roosevelt passionately believed in the construction of a new world order, safe for the world and also for the almighty dollar. He was wholly unsentimental about his British ally's future. Very hard bargains were driven in return for the supply of armaments – including forced sales to US interests of British overseas assets. Britain had rebuilt her net overseas assets after the First World War; all those and more were effectively sold cheap for dollars in the Second.
Unlike the Soviet Union, who likewise received massive US (and very considerable British) aid, we went on paying for all this to the US until the first decade of the 21st century. All our military secrets, Bouverie shows, were given to America, up to and including the atom bomb research. Bouverie could have mentioned penicillin, too. Nothing came the other way. But it was necessary: we had nothing else to trade. The Red Army drove west in Michigan-made Chevrolet trucks, but Stalin obliterated any memory of the Western help without which Russian heroism might well not have been enough.
The unity of the Big Three was often fractious and worse: Roosevelt could humiliate Churchill in front of Stalin every bit as much as Trump humiliated Zelensky in the White House. Bouverie charts the personal fallings-out and the reconciliations with great sensitivity and sometimes humour. Dreadful and dangerous beliefs in personal relationships often had terrible consequences. Poland was ultimately sacrificed at least partly because Roosevelt, and for a time Churchill too, genuinely trusted Stalin. Horrible things were agreed at Yalta and before involving the repatriation of people to their deaths in the Soviet Union – Uncle Joe was, after all, such a good chap.
Reading this powerful and well-researched book left this reviewer with one very uncomfortable feeling. Read from the point of view of an isolationist, right-wing American political adviser of today, you could find precedent in what the sainted Roosevelt's did to the British for just about everything President Trump's administration is currently doing to Ukraine. 'Take their assets to pay for any help we give! Settle the boundaries of Europe in a way that satisfies Uncle Joe/my friend Putin! Russia's interests do not really diverge from America's! Good old Vlad just wants safe borders. Britain/Ukraine/Europe is on the way out anyway. And I have looked into Uncle Joe's/my friend Putin's eyes and I know I can trust him!'
But Roosevelt had another, very different side to him that ensured his legacy. He was determined 'not to do a Woodrow Wilson' by letting the US scuttle home after the war to leave the world brewing up its next one. He believed profoundly in the values of liberal democracy and wanted his legacy to be a framework for peace, which would have the power and the prestige to prevent war. He left the embryonic UN and the Bretton Woods structures to try to ensure it. Roosevelt understood that the interests of the US and the almighty dollar depended on worldwide order. His safe place in history derives not least from his recognition that American power was the power of a law-based nation, and that spreading a law-based order was not only in the interest of his own people, but of the world as a whole. President Trump is said to admire FDR: he gets the ruthlessness, but does not seem to understand the greatness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.
Glasgow Times
3 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Reeves signs off on £14bn to build new nuclear plant Sizewell C
The Chancellor is set to confirm the funding at the GMB Congress on Tuesday. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance'. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is set to confirm £14.2 billion of investment in the new Sizewell C nuclear plant(Stefan Rousseau/PA) Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. But the head of a campaign group opposing the plant criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. The Energy Secretary said: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis. 'This is the Government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.' It will get the UK off the 'fossil fuel rollercoaster', he separately told The Guardian. 'We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double by 2050. All the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. 'In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The joint managing directors of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann, said: 'Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Sizewell C, the UK's first British-owned nuclear power plant in over 30 years.' At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs and the company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. The plant, which will power the equivalent of six million homes, is planned to be operational in the 2030s. The Government is also due to confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes and will invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research as part of plans to boost the UK's nuclear industry. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance' (Kin Cheung/PA) Regional Secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group have previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
