The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

July 13th, 2009 at 05:39pm Under Admiralty Law

The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) commenced operation on 15 August 2005. The Act represents a major progression in the regulation of civil litigation in NSW. For the first time in history civil proceedings in the Supreme, District and Local Courts and the Dust Diseases Tribunal will be governed by one set of common rules.
The sections of various Acts that have been moved into the CP Act are largely sections governing common procedural, as opposed to substantive matters. Those sections include matters of common concern to all the courts such as, case management regimes, costs and interest.
The Act will also streamline and simplify procedures and remove unnecessary differences between courts. It will lead to time and costs savings for the courts, the legal profession and the public. The Act also makes provisions allowing courts to utilise new technologies such as electronic lodgement of documents by clients and more efficient court management practice.
The Uniform Civil Procedure project, which formulated the Act and its accompanying rules, commenced in early 2003. A working party was established and chaired by Justice Hamilton of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The party consisted of representatives of the District Court, the Local Court, the Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Attorney General’s Department.
The guiding philosophy of this process was to deliver a common set of rules across the various levels of jurisdiction within the NSW judicial system. Under this policy three specific goals were targeted; to provide a common set of rules, simplified where possible, but without radical changes in substance or form.
The Civil Procedure Bill was finalised in September 2004.
The new Act and rules generally apply to civil proceedings in the Supreme, District and Local Courts and the Dust Diseases Tribunal. The Act and rules largely reflect existing provisions and continue to use phrases that have a settled legal meaning. The Civil Procedure Act contains some provisions moved form the Supreme Court Act 1970, the District Court Act 1973 and the Local Courts (Civil Claims Act) 1970.
A number of acts have been repealed in the wake of the new Act. Statutes that regulate civil procedure such as the Arbitration (Civil Actions) Act 1983, the Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929, the Judgment Creditors Remedies Act 1901 and the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1980.
The relevant provisions of these Acts that have survived the consolidation process have generally been moved into the CP Act and rules and the Local Courts Act 1982.
Despite the prevailing policy of the project to streamline civil procedure and create a uniform regime, some differences between different courts have been maintained. In most instances this was a matter of practicality. The approach adopted recognises the fact that not all proceedings are the same. For example simple debt claims in a Local Court should not be subject to the same requirements as complex proceedings in the Supreme Court.
In other cases time constraints prevented the working party from moving specialist civil rules regarding probate and appeals to the Court of Appeal into uniform rules. It is intended that work will commence on moving these specialist rules into the uniform rules after the commencement of the initial set. The Corporations Rules and the Admiralty Rules, will not be moved into the uniform rules because they operate on a federal basis and are therefore apply nationally.
The main changes in terms of structure are moving directions and case management rules to an early position in the CP Act. This step was taken to embody the overriding purpose to give effect to the requirement of a just, quick and cheap disposal of proceedings.
Apart from the above alteration to structure the order of the Supreme Court Rules and the District Court Rules has essentially been maintained, that is, the process from beginning to end. This has been done to keep the rules both logical and familiar to users.
The CP Act gives a statutory basis for the issue of practice notes and regulates the relationship between itself, the CP rules and the remaining balance of the present rules. The senior judicial officer will be able to issue practice notes to deal with specific aspects of civil proceedings in a court. Under the operation of s 15 of the Act the practice notes will be subject to the CP rules and they will be disallowable under Part 6 of the Interpretation Act.
Furthermore s 17 allows the Uniform Rules Committee to approve forms for use in civil proceedings. New simple common forms address a number of concerns that have been raised about the existing forms and will meet future electronic filing requirements. The forms are available on court websites, at court registries and via legal publishing companies.
This simplified set of common forms will be used in all courts. This helped to give effect to an important objective of the project as it will save on costs. Practitioners will only have to keep one set of forms on their records and fill the required categories depending on which court they were in.
In all three courts there are to be two forms only of originating process, that is, statement of claim and summons. Additionally the rules as to pleadings and discovery and interrogatories are to be maintained.
The recently harmonised rules that have been adopted on a federal level regarding subpoenas are to be adopted by the CP Act.

Contract:The Soul of Business

July 13th, 2009 at 11:39am Under Admiralty Law

I sometimes imagine how life would have been with a single individual facing life all by himself in one desert with everything he needs for his comfort. I believe it would have been very drab. It would have been life devoid of the usual social interactions that defines life in the communal setting. The above scenario is practically illusory today, may be consistent with the Stone Age. Nigeria today is made up of about 140 Million people, India about 800 Million, USA over 300 million, China about 1.6 billion and basically every community is a community of individuals with different traits and sometimes culture, religion, etc. The progressive change factor today has made the world a global village with social/business interactions across international boundaries. The implication of the above is that individuals within a particular community are foisted with the responsibility of engaging in contracts whether social or formal to lubricate their interactions without which life will be the survival of the fittest. A contract is an agreement between two or more people to do or be engaged in something. In every facet of life we see the inter play of contract. It will therefore be apposite to describe contract as the soul of life and those who have disregarded the essence of contract in their daily and particularly business relationships have done so at their own peril. The nationals of any country have knowingly or unknowingly given their consent to a social contract to live together in accordance with the dictates of the Law of the land; the family unit is enforced by an agreement between spouses to get married. It regulates the workplace (employee/employer relationships) and most importantly plays a pivotal role in our day to day business relationships, whether in the area of supply, provision of services, admiralty (carriage of goods) and equally in every facet of the economy. A good knowledge of the Laws or principles regulating contract will be an advantage to entrepreneurs and other business men as same will greatly protect their business interest and minimize the risk of proceeding upon void or void able contracts with great faith on it but with little or no legal consequence. The result will be dashed hopes when the need will arise to rely on such contracts. Certain basic elements exist in any valid contract i.e. 1. OFFER: This is defined as a definite undertaking or promise made by one party with the intention that it shall become binding on the party to whom it is addressed. 2. ACCEPTANCE: Acceptance is an indication by an offeree made while the offer remains open and in the manner requested in the offer of the offeree & willingness to be bound unconditionally to a contract with the offeror in the terms stated in the offer. 3. CONSIDERATION: Consideration is an act or forbearance of one party or the promise therefore, it is the price for which the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus given for value is enforceable. Contracts are preceded sometimes by an invitation to treat which are preliminaries to the contract and as such does not simpliciter confer any legal right. The starting point of a valid contract is an offer extended by a party either to a specified person or to the world at large. For a contract to be established, the offer must be accepted by either the party it is directed to if specific, or by any one if general. Every contract has two sides to it’s benefits and the forbearances once an offer is accepted, for a party to rely on it he must have furnished consideration (forbearance) which will then entitle it to earn or enjoy the benefits from the contract. Careful attention should be given to the terms of any contract before going into it as the court will usually give effect to such terms under the principle of sanctity of contract except where the contract is blighted by undue influence, mistake or entered under duress or element of fraud or for non compliance with existing statutes as they relate to illiterates, infants etc. It is important not to put your signature on any contract unless you are sure of what you are signing, it could be toying with the soul of your business.

Sir Winston Churchill

July 13th, 2009 at 05:39am Under Admiralty Law

Sir Winston Churchill was one of the most prominent politicians of the 20th century in the United Kingdom. He was surely the most famous Prime Minister of the 20th century. His personality compounded talented author, outstanding speaker, artist, and a great leader that managed to escape Britain’s defeat and even be among the winning nations at the end of World War Two.

Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born on the 30th of November, 1874 in Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire in the family of Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome. Winston’s father was a famous Tory politician, descendent of John Churchill (1st duke of Marlborough, the hero of the wars against French Louis XIV). Winston’s mother was the daughter of a prominent American financier Leonard W. Jerome.

Churchill was a very poor student at school that later resulted his father to make young Winston to join the military. Here again he did not show great results and passed the entrance examination to the Royal Military College only from the third try. However, he took studying at college seriously and graduated 20th in class out of 130. After graduating from college Winston Churchill joined the 4th Hussars and ended up in Cuba reporting on Cuban independence war from Spain. A couple of months later Churchill returned back home from Cuba and left for India along with his division. In India he for the first time he experienced being a soldier and a journalist at the same time.

The future prime minister decided to finish his career in the military and go into politics. For the living he wanted to write articles for different newspapers and magazines. The tradition to lose for the first time did not fail for Churchill when he tried to be elected as a Conservative at Oldham. Instead of a Conservative at Oldham Winston found himself in South Africa reporting on the South African War for British newspaper The Morning Post. Not being lucky was sort of a story of Churchill’s life, this time he was captured by Boers as a prisoner in military prison in South Africa. However, he managed to escape from the prison which later made him nearly a hero when he went back home.

After coming back from Africa he decided to run for the Parliament again in 1900. This time he achieved his goal. Being a member of the Parliament Churchill experienced difficulties with public speaking as he had a speech defect (that he actually never lost). It was a big challenge for him but it did not break him up and he never left oratory art.

In 1904 due to some disagreements with his party members over trade tariffs Churchill had to join the Liberals. In the new spot he quickly gained popularity for his brave debates with those who argued with him. In 1908 Churchill became the president of the Board of Trade. That same year Winston Churchill married (the first and the last time) Clementine Hozier.

At the Board of Trade, Churchill became a leader in the movement of Liberalism away from laissez-faire toward social reform. He finished up the law that set an eight hour working day for miners. He also initiated the bill that would set the minimum wages for different types of workers. In 1908 Churchill forced the rejection of the budget of 1909 by the House of Lords (which really was sensational) due to high level of taxation. Very shortly Churchill became a president of the Budget League. Tories were really furious about Churchill’s great progress and his permanent terrific speeches. In 1910 Churchill became a Home Secretary. On this position he faced everlasting strikes of workers. In 1911 he was appointed to the First Lord of the Admiralty. The very same year after German’s provocative sending a gunboat to Morocco, which was France colony, was persuaded by French to help them out if Germany attacks them in the future. Same year, Churchill sort of smelling the gunpowder of the upcoming enormous conflict decided to expand the British navy. As 1914 approached Churchill assured that the Royal Fleet was ready for the war was not a surprise for him at all. In 1915 Churchill failed the Dardanelles campaign that was greatly blamed for. In late 1915 Churchill resigned from the government and went to the Front. Being even a lieutenant colonel in the army he could not use his full capacity in the military. In 1916 he decided to Parliament as a private member. One year later Churchill had the office of Minister of Munitions where developed the use of tanks. In 1919 his next job was to be the Secretary of War. Everyone was greatly surprised when Churchill tremendously decreased the military budget. What was even more surprising is that Churchill as a zealous anti-Bolshevik made allies with Russia. In 1922 Churchill had his appendicitis attacks that greatly damaged his health and due to that failed the elections and eventually was left with nothing. He once said about that period of time “without an office, without a seat, without a party, and even without an appendix.” Even then Winston Churchill was not broken. He returned to painting and writing. That is when The World Crisis was written. In 1923 Churchill got back to what he could not live without – politics. Couple of years later he received a position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not very strong in finance that actually led to a number of incidents during the time at this position. The major trouble was a general strike that took place in 1926. In 1929 the government fell.

The second time for Churchill happened the period when he was out of politics. However, he found it rather relieving. Now it was perfect time to write again what he actually did. This time his work was Marlborough: His Life and Times that was about his ancestor. Main point of the book was to defend his antecedent against the criticism of some historians. Meantime a threat from a fascist Germany was getting greater. His intuition did not fail this time either. However, his warnings were ignored this time as well. In early 1939 Churchill and his group created a truly national coalition and the country had actually accepted him as a main spokesperson.

All Churchill’s experience at his numerous positions seemed to be some kind of rehearsal for something greater. This “greater” was the Second World War. Churchill was the person to be in charge of Britain actions during the largest military campaign in the human history.

Great Britain declared war on Nazi Germany on September 3, 1939. On the same day Churchill was appointed back to his old position First Lord of Admiralty. The President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in the office at that time, congratulated Churchill with his position on September 11 to which Winston the head of the British fleet immediately replied. That is when their famous correspondence had started.

As Germany was invading more countries Chamberlain who was the Prime Minister of England at that time resigned from the office. Chamberlain really wanted Lord Halifax to be his successor but Halifax made up some excuses and rejected the proposition. It was obvious that this position was waiting for Churchill. Winston Churchill was ready to direct the nation.

Now Churchill focused on the real handling the war. He used Parliament as the tool to convince the public and comfort it. For the first time Prime Minister Churchill spoke to the House of Commons on May 13. That is when one of his famous quotes “I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat” was recorded. He accomplished what he promised y completely dedicating himself to the nation the war was over. Churchill did not really care who was an ally as long as they helped and shared his goals and ideas. One of the most important allies that Britain gained during the Second World War was the United States. It was Churchill’s principle idea to get the United States to help Britain. One of the most important events for Churchill and probably for Great Britain in the entire 20th century was the Battle of Britain. Now, Churchill was at fighter headquarters having everything that was going on in his personal control and at the same time trying to cheer up the nation. That was the time when the entire nation completely accepted him as a leader.

Another important strategic point for Churchill was when Hitler started to attack the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Churchill did not reject what he previously saying about communism, nevertheless, he promised support to the Soviet people. His plan to create an alliance between Great Britain, United States, and the Soviet Union seemed to work out. However, it only became true in May 1942 when the Anglo-Soviet pact of mutual assistance was negotiated. The day that changed the whole perception of the war by Churchill was December 7, 1941 when Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Then Churchill and Roosevelt totally agreed that it was time to launch the strategic alliance.

After the war was over Churchill had to get back to politics. This time the nation viewed him as a war leader but not the party leader. It resulted a great defeat at the elections. This time seats of Churchill’s party in the Parliament were reduced to 213 out of 640.

Churchill was really shocked by such an outcome; he did not predict it this time. Even in this situation Winston Churchill found his place. He got a role of the leader of parliamentary opposition. Churchill now devoted himself to foreign relations. For the next couple of years Churchill was a peacetime Prime Minister. Meantime he was writing his The Second World War that he finished in 1953. Talking about 1953, it was a very important year for Winston Churchill. It was the year of coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Churchill received two greatest awards: the Order of the Garter and the Nobel Prize for Literature. However, it was a difficult year for Churchill in terms of health. On April 5, 1955 Churchill resigned from the office.

On April 9, 1963 Winston Churchill received the unique honorary U.S. citizenship from the U.S. Congress. He died in London on January 24, 1965 and buried in Bladon churchyard in Oxfordshire.

Churchill is known in the world’s history as one of the greatest politicians and orators. He had so many positions in the governing body of England that not many politicians can even think of. He was a leader that left a significant mark not only in the British history but the also in the world’s. Sir Winston Churchill was a man of so many talents that people can only admire him and read his famous quotes.

Jeff Stats is an expert at Mindrelief.net. Our custom essay writing service is a great chance for you to present an essay of the highest standard to your professor. The assistance of our writers is a priceless input in your professional development. Our college essays and research papers are written only for you.

Churchill – Right or Wrong ? an Analysis

July 12th, 2009 at 11:38pm Under Admiralty Law

“We are shaping the world faster than we can change ourselves, and we are applying to the present the habits of the past.” (W. Churchill) To warrant a citation as one of the most influential or the most influential man in our century, entails a convincing description of a long term devotion and impact on the direction of society and history. This author submits that in the 20th century the intractable flow of events has been towards the liberation of people, both in spiritual and material terms, and that the defining principles of some type of Liberal Democracy now hold true in many regions of the globe – many more than at the start of the century. Let us not underestimate this fact. For the first time in human history, more people have control over their own lives as a % of the population than ever before. It is too be expected that this shall continue, but of course such a trend is not certain. There are people enough who would like to derange the liberation of the mass, and pass us back to the days of centralised or oligarchic control. However in toto there is no intellectual or economic challenger to the Liberal Democratic model at this time. One of the great new situations and driving forces of our world today is international economic interdependence. Further world-wide integration is unstoppable. There will be fits, regressions, complaining and pauses, questions, arguments, harangues, and resolutions, but always over time a forward movement towards what may be termed unshackled and fair trade and cross border integration will proceed. What needs to be addressed is how can we fairly develop the markets and the economic strength of less developed nations whilst still maintaining the economic growth and market access of more developed nations. The balancing act will be marvellous to behold. Adam Smith infused with both Galbraith and Greenpeace. In this regard and given that the values and concepts of Liberal – Democratic society are subtle and complex, we need then to go back and ask ourselves, “How did we get here and why.” Thus the perspective of history is necessary. If we look at how this century evolved it can be determined that very few leaders have had such a imposing and sincere belief in Liberal Democracy and the accumulated spoils produced by such a society: freedom, self determination, security and a healthy standard of life, as did Churchill. He was not a corrupt politician interested in the pursuit of power for its own sake, but a statesman interested in power for its intelligent application to better the lot of the common citizen. The program that Churchill followed in his life, and I speak here of his Liberal-Democratic program, was, with the exception of 1 occurrence (the independence of India, which will be discussed later), remarkably consistent with the theme of expanding Liberal Democratic principles. This is due in large part to his upbringing in the Liberal Aristocracy of the British Empire; due in part to his political father’s Liberal ideals and his American mother’s robust (and extremely adulterous) New World energy; and due in part to his experiences across the world as a young man, where he witnessed the power and relative success of the Liberalised (though not really democratic) British Empire, in comparison with other orders that lacked the discipline to generate and project wealth and power. As a prophet of Liberal Democracy, there could have been no better trained or indoctrinated messiah than Churchill. The man whose family history had been formed around the development of British Parliamentary, and Liberal Orthodox supremacy. Again as with other outstanding humans he still achieved much more, than his contemporaries; many of whom were as intelligent, dedicated and immersed in the achievement of moral and political prestige as Churchill. This is where then Churchill’s story becomes interesting. What set him apart from the others ? Chance, money, dumb luck, patronage ? In human destiny all of these play a role. But to climb a pinnacle these are not enough. I would submit that Churchill provides illumination and support to many of Bennis’ leadership notions. Or how else could he have scaled the heights ? He had definite views on how a society should be structured and shaped. The love of a tempered democracy, the creation of a system to ensure proper leadership and guidance, the development of systems to allow prosperity, peace and support, occupied the mind of this man throughout his whole life. Churchill was obsessed with improving the lot of mankind and consumed by the proper use of power and leadership. And like Bennis he believed in a set of management and leadership principles that propelled him to greatness. For those who write, think and practice true leadership, Churchill possessed radical views. Not of the immoderate, intolerable type. But those of classical, orthodox, Liberalism. Churchill believed in the need for the State to take an active part, both by legislation and finance to ensure that minimum standards of life, labour and social well-being for all citizens were maintained in an atmosphere conducive to fair trade and entrepreneurialism. Among the areas where Churchill during his varied career, took an active part were; prison reform, unemployment insurance, state-aided pensions for widows and orphans, permanent arbitration for labour disputes, state assistance for the unemployed, shorter hours of work, improved retail shop conditions, a National Health Service, wider access to education, taxation of excess profits and employee profit-sharing. Quite a list from a man who was supposedly one dimensional – the World War II embodiment of victorious unconquerable Britannia. Other great men and women could be analysed and presented. But Churchill, one of the most complex, energetic and effective of history’s leaders, stands as an unparalleled example of leading and dealing with crisis, while defending, developing or discerning the limitations, values and concepts of political leadership and importantly freedom and democracy. He was unique. His style, mode of governance, deeply rooted and strongly held system of beliefs, and importantly his gaping weaknesses, should serve as a serious model upon which to reconstruct the training and choosing of our political leaders and governmental workers. It is not a perfect model. But certainly it is better than the ad-hoc, clandestine, shaded political leadership system we have today. Let’s then take a cursory look at Churchill’s skills according to the framework laid out in the last chapter. A fuller explanation of his skills will follow in Chapter Four when we discuss his actions during World War Two. Character: In reading any volume about Churchill’s life the most blinding aspect in understanding his success, is the quality, depth and strength of his character. Many other men would long have given up, or perished in their chosen professions, if they had been subject to the same trials as Churchill. In general from studying his life I can safely state that he never took the easy route. He was certainly never offered the easy spoils. Yet he never bowed his knee to opinion polls, party whips, or popular expressions that ran contrary to his own judgement and sense of purpose. In comparing Churchill with other great’s of this century there is no one that had to endure the opprobrium, distrust or number of setbacks as did Churchill. Even the witch hunt instigated against William Clinton, is pretty mild stuff compared with what the press had to say about Churchill during the first half of this century. I am always amazed that Churchill was able not only to survive through it all, but survive with a smile. This is not to romanticise his or anyone else’s macho strength and egotism. Both in large doses are negative. However, without strength of character change is impossible, adversity cannot be overcome and good never triumphs over evil. In the dawning age of ‘Principle Parties’ as replacements for the outmoded ‘Political Parties’ trained individuals, relishing and brandishing these 3 traits will be needed to cut through the Gordian knot of the insoluble political drift we have today. We must remember the tenets of evolution and that change is not always progressive or better. To advance the human species needs change and conflicting ideas. These are necessary — not lobby groups, supine presidents and empty suits. Upon the scarred field of politics Churchill stressed strength and magnanimity as the cornerstones of his behaviour. If impatience was his great weakness than offering magnanimity to the defeated – whether a local political opponent or Germany after World War II – casted Churchill as a strong but gallant knight and a man raised above the normal dash and din of political conflict. He fought all battles with limitless reserve and strategy. He offered friend and foe alike illimitable goodwill and respect after the conflict. His ideals imbued with history and coupled with a vision of where his country should be in the world were marked by a sense of fair play. Principles and not parties dictated his actions. For these reasons he is a man to be honoured and acclaimed as a defendant of democratic right and privilege. To be effective statesmanship must lay on established principles and constraints rather than on emotive impulses and frayed passions. We should not forget that nations have no permanent friends, only semi-permanent interests, a covenant that often offends popular sympathy and belief. For it is these realism’s, that politics is a game of shifting fortunes, relationships and situations, that disgusts the great majority in democratic lands. Politics is like making love– natural, necessary and enjoyable– only if it is done properly. What is discernible about Churchill is his hard-headed realism and practicality in accepting such truths. Consequently he looked ahead a great deal more carefully and cautiously than many of his contemporary observers thought mutating viewpoints and re-evaluating some of his opinions. Of course some cried that he was too fluid and perhaps could not be trusted and other criticasters weary of Churchill’s rhetoric, would delight in emphasising that Churchill was a product of the late 19th century immutable and intractable. Thus from both sides – conservatives and liberals – Churchill received a drubbing, regardless of the integrity of his actions. Churchill’s bellicosity caused much of the drubbing. One should consider the weight and purity of Churchill’s virtue and charity to all he contacted – friend or foe – even though he received the most acidic and heavily concentrated attacks of any politician in any era. Critics never tired of chopping at the tree of Churchill’s accomplishments. It began when he crossed the floor in 1904 to join the Liberals. It received a great accretion in strength during the winter of 1913-4 when Churchill was the subject of a broad protest by pacifists, economists, and social reformers who thought that as First Lord of the Admiralty he was too profligate and was promoting the arms race. At the root of the discontent and many to follow, was the fact that Churchill was not a good party man. As such the image of the war mongering pirateer was born and created by an aspersive socialist press. Churchill was not a war monger, “his thought has always been, between the wars, upon the means of making peace among the peoples.” For his critics such distractions were carefully ignored. It was during 1913-14 that the apparati to hang Churchill politically was established and raised for action. What is inestimable is the fortitude and resilience of mind and body to withstand such brutal, crabby treatment that Churchill received at the hands of malcontents and frustrated plotters. His closest friends recognised clearly the political courage of Churchill. On November 11 1922, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), wrote to a friend; “The man is as brave as six, as good-humoured, shrewd, self-confident and considerate as a statesman can be and several times I’ve seen him chuck the statesmanship course and do the honest thing instead.” The honest thing included enacting proper change. When we view the broad balance of Churchill’s career and factor in the jealousy inherent in the political field and the degree of envy held by many of Churchill’s excessive successes we observe that many of his greatest contributions to the establishment of public welfare and governmental responsibility were initiatives driven from within, without concern to reputation, personal circumstance or fortune. Most were decidedly modern and far sighted. This is quite clear in his advancement of ‘Tory Democracy’ – economic growth with general support for the masses. Tory Democracy is another prescription for centrist governance. Often times this led him to advocate the dismemberment of party politics and the establishment of a broad nationally based governance: “Parliamentary debate has become largely meaningless. All the time the two great party machines are grinding up against each other with the utmost energy, dividing every village, every street, every town and city into busy party camps. Each party argues that it is the fault of the other. What is certain is that to prolong the process indefinitely is the loss of all…Once it can be seen that a great new situation or great new issues lie before us, an appeal should be made to the people to create some governing force which can deal with our affairs in the name and in the interest of the large majority of the nation.” Part of Churchill’s trajectory to statesmanship can be seen in the light of time. First accumulate a reputation for outspoken principled action. Second, accumulate power via alliances, learning and public positioning. Then state a vision resplendent with clear principles, meanings and images while solving local problems. Lastly accede to great affairs and the devising of solutions in a national and international context. This trajectory needs to be buttressed by character, skills (verbal and technical), vision and power accumulation and recognition. To have these skills imbedded in action is not enough. A person must also have as a bedrock a clear and clean sense of duty and morality. Importantly Churchill was clean. Adultery, conspiracy, or treachery were never a part of Churchill’s character. Loyalty, aggression and impulsiveness were the main exciting agents in Churchill’s life. His extreme ambition bordering at times on foolhardiness but always driven by an abnormal energy galvanised all around him. Churchill was always a contrarian thinker, and a statesman of the highest order, but he was not a Machiavellian posturer. His success rested on energy, innovation and positive thinking, all in a consistent framework employed in over 50 years of statesmanship. Skills: Churchill personified the well instructed and knowledgeable Leader. He was a self-developed man. As a youth he immersed himself in governing, leadership and policy. He never ceased learning and improving all of his life. He spent a great deal of time learning skills from his contemporaries such as Lloyd George, Lord Fisher, Herbert Asquith, F.E. Smith, and Max Beaverbrook amongst many others. On a political level this education led to a vision not only of strong morality but of rationality. In very few instances did Churchill compromise his personal code of morality for the sake of political gain. In this he was exemplary. But he was also a realist. He was adept at combining power and ethics in a compelling package. Very few understood the effective use of political leverage better than Churchill. Compare Churchill’s self-education program with the political elite today. How many are steeped in history, philosophy, and the rigours and tribulations of historical notables ? What percent of our esteemed political masters exhibit such a rounded appreciation of the conditions and matters that shaped and will continue to shape the human story ? As Churchill sourly commented to then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin in 1928 concerning the ease with which World War One could have been avoided: “Think of these people, decent, educated, the story of the past laid out before them. What to avoid, what to do etc. Patriotic, loyal, clean — trying their utmost. What a ghastly muddle they made of it ! Unteachable from infancy to tomb — there is the first & main characteristic of mankind.” In looking at his life nothing can sum up the traits and skills of Churchill in short pleasing verbiage. He was patently too many people, a definite renaissance man, engaging in politics, writing, reporting, painting, farming, hunting, polo playing, warring and investing. Besides a massive intellect and memory Churchill possessed a spirit spurred with the whips of energy. It was unrelenting. His was the creed of action and contempt for delay. Mission was founded and achieved by exploring, questioning, trying, failing and trying again. During the 1930’s when the Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay Macdonald governments neglected the build-up of British war making strength and sought the treacherous path of appeasement to satiate the Nazi beast, Churchill who had long criticised the insipidity of such a program exclaimed in 1936 the memorable words about Baldwin’s government revealing his contempt for hiding inactivity in political closets; “The government simply cannot make up their mind, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.” Brilliant diction summing up the most hated of Churchill’s dislikes – inaction. But we have still to reach that quality in Churchill, which warrants us in calling him great. For a man may be gifted far above the ordinary, without earning the emblem of true greatness. Churchill had brilliant gifts. He was, in addition, driven by a limitless, borderless, shifting, resolute ambition. Without such magnificent ambition, men never have, and never will accede to the summit of power, prestige and greatness. “Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise (that last infirmity of noble mind), To scorn delights, and live laborious days.” But unseemly ambition is insufficient to earn the appellation of great. It has to be elevated by noble principles (‘that last infirmity of noble mind’), to allow a man to rise above the supine mass. Flaming pertinacity is dangerous without the fibre of moral strength. Credibility rests on the broad shoulders of honesty and reliability. No Leader can shrug off those characteristics of success. Genius and energy do not necessarily shape the epiphanies of leadership. They have to combined in harmony and strength with the skills and qualities that we discussed in the last chapter, and which illuminate true leadership. Intelligence: But character, skill and morality are not enough for leaders. Intelligence is necessary. It does us no good having a clutch of well intentioned clods fouling up the process. Intelligence can only really be measured by verbal capacity and skill. IQ measures and tests are inaccurate. Churchill owned the English language and he owned the skill of persuasion. As such he commanded the heights of leadership. He could communicate the moment, the mission, and the energy. Churchill was one of the few politicians in our century that had a beautiful, lucid communication and vocabulary. Emboldening this was his common sense, technical skill and creativity. Above all the dynamism of his verbal adroitness lied in the desire for action and not drift. A baser form of intelligence is what can be termed ‘Political Antennae’. In most political circles this skill is usually too overdeveloped. In the case of Churchill it was surprisingly weak and poorly unused. Churchill’s rhetoric was maybe too developed and at times not flexible enough for his audience or plainly inappropriate. But this weakness is still overshadowed by his capacity at conciliation and political problem solving and more vitally by his verbal capability. Churchill engineered delicate dispute resolutions over South Africa, Ireland, and social reform in England to name but a few, quickly striding across political boundaries and ideologies and involving himself intimately with those who had the greatest grievance in order to solve the conflict. Coupled with his strong array of communication skills he achieved a political pre-eminence that darkly shadowed his companions. His oratory and conciliatory skills were allowed to flourish due to the mastery of technical details. Churchill was one of those rare politicians that actually knew what he was talking about. This dedication to lucidity ties in with persuasion and compromise and the knowledge of details leads to flexibility because plans can be made for each situation. Churchill always had three or four contingency plans for every situation. Strategy and vision thus sprung from intelligence and from being able to see the whole picture and from the confidence that one way or another the vision would be achieved. This vision coupled with creativity gave Churchill adequate resources to enact change and innovation. In political spheres Churchill was light years ahead of his companions in collecting, analysing, and synthesising information at the micro level and relating it to the big picture. His innovation stemmed from patient practicality and discipline and not inspired genius as romantic novels about great change would like us to believe. This vision included fair economic trade and economic liberalism, adequate welfare for the population, peace and democratic governance, classical and scientifically or technically based education, and a powerful security apparatus to combat evil and aggression. In achieving his aims, and in using his native and educated intelligence Churchill consciously chose to be nobody’s knave. He flaunted his independence, not only in action, but also in flamboyant dress and style. Yet his romantic urges were touched by the humbleness of most people’s lives, but to those at the summit where power corrupts, contracts are broken, lies are purveyed as half-truths, the issue of spirit and mores takes on a different colour. Basically Churchill trusted his own counsel and that of a half-dozen friends. To the rest of the world he looked like a recluse. To those who knew him well, he was defending himself against the often wicked and spiteful attacks of political banditos. Hence sympathy for the mass, trust for the few. In this regard Churchill was exceptionally callous and rough to friend and foe alike in his early years. But as time tempered and beat down the baser impulses of searing rhetoric, Churchill acquired another skill — that of informal networking and interpersonal persuasion. He became as he aged refreshingly human. However, it was not until the 1930’s when he was in his late 50s and early 60s, that strident verbal missives were shelved for moderate expositions (with some notable exceptions) of the situation at hand, and fair treatment was meted out to friend and foe alike. As Churchill matured so did his attention to friendship. “If F.E. (Smith), was strong meat and stronger drink, then Churchill in contrast to his public reputation as a ‘domineering’, even ‘rude’, figure, had in the intimacy of personal friendship a quality which is almost feminine in its caressing charm” As F.E. wrote, Churchill had a ‘simplicity which no other public man of the highest distinction possesses.’ He also endeavoured to perform many deeds of goodwill to aid friends and family. It can be summarised by Philip Snowden a long-time Churchill opponent and liberal critic, “Your generosity to a political opponent marks you for ever in my eyes the ‘great gentleman’ I have always thought you. Had I been in trouble which I could not control myself, there is none to whom I should have felt I could come with more confidence that I should be gently treated.” A budget of good humour, tact and some considered patience fund the other necessary resources and tools to achieve success. Alone they are unsubstantive. It is better to be dour and effective, than gay and incompetent. Allied to well-developed skills and principles, sensitivity, embedded in the formidable array of humour and tact, provides a potent and efficient tool. About Churchill it is fair to say that he was ambitious and calculating; but not cold and that saved him. As a colleague stated, “His ambition is sanguine, runs in a torrent, and the calculation is hardly more than the rocks or the stump which the torrent strikes for a second…queer, shrewd power of introspection, which tells him his gifts and character are such as will make him boom….He was born a demagogue, and he happens to know it.” Yet ambition without a defining purpose can not only corrupt, but it can also destroy. Vision: A crowning vision is really the linchpin that will attract followers. Most good and great individuals have displayed a pretty consistent approach to the world and a pretty stable world view. Some superficial analysis may suggest that because Churchill changed parties, challenged convention, criticised incompetence and insipidity and usurped obedience, he was a grasping, clawing, malevolent opportunist. If rigid conformity is the sign of good political standing, Churchill was indeed recklessly unpredictable and unreliable. However, the picture of Churchill as a soldier of fortune, an adventurer and a troublemaker was and is incorrect. Strong ethics, values and principles guided his actions. He had little of Lloyd George’s cunning or the well-disguised craftiness of Stanley Baldwin. His decisions might have been unpredictable, but his motives were seldom hard to fathom. Churchill rarely embroiled himself in the base pettiness of political intrigue in part from a distaste of such ignominy, combined as well with a guileless personality. To the charge of unreliability Churchill retorted that, “To improve is to change. To be perfect is to have changed often.” In actual fact the changes were due to some effort at self improvement, but to a fidelity of what he already was. Churchill was most consistent with his own true north direction when he was the least supportive of his party’s policy. Churchill never could swallow the party line always choosing and deciding for himself. In assessing Churchill’s skill base the following is a reasonable portrait: “Far from changing his views too often, Mr Churchill has scarcely, during a long and stormy career, altered them at all. If anyone wishes to discover his views on the large and lasting issues of our time, he need only set himself to discover what Mr Churchill has said or written on the subject at any period of his long and exceptionally articulate public life, in particular during the years before the First World War: The number of instances in which his views have in later years undergone any appreciable degree of change will be astoundingly small….When biographers and historians come to describe his views…they will find that his opinions on all these topics are set in fixed patterns, set early in life and later only reinforced.” This historical reality is evidenced when studying Churchill. What drove Churchill in his personal intellectual and political journey’s can also be said to mirror the advance of imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries . Thus not only did he possess grand skill, he was also a student but more importantly a conscious product of history. In this regard he closely resembles (consciously no doubt) British and world history. Even in his literary works this is reflected. For instance in Churchill’s book, ‘The Story of the Malakand Field Force’, which depicts British soldiery in north-western India at the turn of the 20th century he questioned what motivated men and nations to face great hazards. The principal elements that Churchill discovered were preparation, discipline, vanity and sentiment and he remarked that sentiment was the most important of the group. Churchill believed that civilisation can only march forward if it clings to a vision – a sentiment that ennobles its occupation and galvanises its spirit. Empires fall because the sword begins to dominate the sentiment and the people lose hold of the impulse and spirit that the sentiment contained and made the use of the sword in the first instance appropriate. This spirit and vision was evident and mature. He commiserated with the poor, the downtrodden or the straggling. Some of his mightiest missions and political forays were instigated on behalf of those who lived lives beyond his comprehension but not his beyond his compassion. Yet here lies a paradox. Within political circles and in the ring of friends and associates he could be extraordinarily blind, politically inept, insensitive and roguish. Or so it appears from a distance. Yet for the great mass of ‘Poor England’ or for the devotion of the Commonwealth nations, tears would be produced, sagas told, and emotion unleashed. The difference is dramatic but crucial. If we examine for instance his stand on fair economic trade he was malleable to changing circumstance but rather solid in his underlying belief in market forces, with government succouring the unlucky. He left the Conservatives over Fair Trade in 1904, when they put forward a policy of protectionism, anathema to an orthodox Liberal like Churchill. He only returned to the Conservative party in 1924 when undue governmental interference in trade had been expunged from their agenda, and when the political costs of doing so were at a low threshold. Fair trade in the mind of Churchill did not preclude beneficial and justified government involvement to at times, stimulate employment and counteract nefarious foreign practice. For instance by 1908 Churchill had developed a respectable appreciation of contra-cyclical public works feeling that in useful but uncompetitive industries such as afforestation, public departments should be constructed to allow the expansion or contraction of work according to the needs of the labour market, much like the utilisation of an accordion. He was also much taken by the notion of having a governmental body dedicated to intelligence gathering on market conditions and inputting clever designs regarding the balance of trade and the proper use of employment. These concepts were never tried. Supportive of free or at least fair trade, Churchill throughout his career could never conceal his concern for the effects of such unbridled combat upon the poor man and women. Speaking in a lecture at Oxford in June of 1930 he posited that unencumbered free trade was not at that time working: “The growth of public opinion, and still more of voting opinion, violently and instinctively rejects many features of this massive creed. No one, for instance, will agree that wages should be settled only by the higgling of the market. No one would agree that modern world-dislocation of industry…should simply be met by preaching thrift and zeal to the displaced worker. Few would agree that private enterprise is the sole agency by which fruitful economic activities can be launched or conducted.” Churchill appended to this suspicion of market forces the idea of an economic council, chosen in proportion to parliamentary representation as an agent of economic advice. This concept of an objective economic watchdog was never viably pursued. These economic doctrines – fair trade and support for the common worker – were strictly consistent with his life long pursuit of social stability, prosperity and opportunity. In wider party politics Churchill was a radical who consistently attacked the Conservatives as a party of wealthy vested interests conspiring to exploit the poor. He had a rough belief in proper mass democracy (though part of him sympathised with the viewpoints of the controversial Nietzche who feared for mass democratisation feeling that the great features of aristocratic or privileged existence would disappear), and most of his actions were ‘de Tocquevillian’. Churchill was fundamentally concerned that there should not be governmental obstruction to the mass of the people realising the benefits that a liberalising democracy could bring into their lives. In 1908 he wrote to Asquith: “There is a tremendous policy in social organisation. The need is urgent and the moment ripe. Germany with a harder climate and far less accumulated wealth has managed to establish tolerable basic conditions for her people. She is organised not only for war, but for peace. We are organised for nothing except party politics. The Minister who will apply to this country the successful experiences of Germany in social organisation may or may not be supported at the polls, but he will at least have a memorial which time will not deface of his administration.” If we consider the tremendous tasks in which the human race and governments; local, regional, national and hopefully international, will struggle against in the near future then social organisation and re-organisation, probably of a brutal or dislocative nature will not be completed in the current ‘pork and play’ atmosphere in today’s political systems. Politicians engaged in change will need the courage to ignore the polls and do what needs to be done. Churchill was a master at this, usually getting the House of Commons to agree to his proposals even if he was in a subordinate or even antagonistic position. The skills used to complete such duties were varied. Very rarely did they include threats, bullying, trampling on souls, or the use of political power. Logic, parliamentary procedure, emotional colour and well-researched positions counted as more important. Churchill proposed and acquired the acceptance of the House on a number of far reaching proposals, including; – Institution of Labour Exchanges and unemployed insurance – National Infirmity Insurance – Special state industries such as roads, afforestation – Modernised poor law (law mandating that children should support their parents) – State control of the railway – Compulsory education until age 17 Churchill’s economic beliefs and education though broader and more profound than many politicians were attached to a series of principles. He loathed dependence and esteemed individualism. He was fully in support of laissez-faire and the doctrines of 17th, 18th and 19th century English economics. His faith in Adam Smith, John Locke and Edwardian experience compelled Churchill to espouse his support in the benedictions of unshackled economic exchange. In October of 1902, in a letter to a political colleague while still a member of the Conservative party, Churchill commented that it was necessary by an ‘evolutionary process’ to create a wing of the Conservative party which would either infuse vigour into the entire unit, or allow the formation of a central coalition. Churchill realised as he stated in the letter that his plan would become most important as an incident in or possibly as a herald of the movement, but that it would also move suspicion that he was moved only by mere restless ambition and not substantive issues. He needed a grand theme and found it in the Free Trade debate of 1903-4. Churchill was unable to countenance the stance of the Conservative party in their clamouring for protection and left joining the Liberals on May 31 1904. Allegations of opportunism, deceit and cowardice, rained down upon him as he shifted sides. In a note to a friend Churchill admitted; “(The) Free Trade issue subsides it leaves my personal ambitions naked and stranded on the beach – and they are an ugly and unsatisfactory spectacle by themselves, though nothing but an advantage when borne forward with the flood of a great outside cause.” Indeed without a great cause ambition is a rather repulsive picture. For Churchill and others liberal ideals as exemplified by the Free Trade question meant more than simply the abolition of protective tariffs. It personifies a whole philosophy of political, social and economic organisation. John Stuart Mill in ‘Principles of Political Economy’ in 1848 developed the ‘Laissez-faire’, concept and every departure from it, unless required by some great good, is a certain evil. This commandment created the key notes of mid-Victorian liberalism: the reliance upon individualism, the establishment of self-respect, and self-reliance, and the organisation of voluntary and co-operative societies to better the plight of the weak, wounded and suffering. Support for such mantra was rooted in an earlier period of excitable prosperity. Coinciding with the advent of Free Trade in the years 1850-1870, there was an economic boom in the UK. It can be fairly argued that the removal of tariff barriers probably had only a marginal impact on the British economy. Nevertheless, psychologically the advent of free trade was closely associated with entrepreneurial zest and commercial success. It appeared that market forces working within the social and political structure solved the question of English strength, which preoccupied the country from 1820-50. Churchill knew his economic history well. It moulded and galvanised his political and philosophical beliefs. It shaped his political attitude and formed one of his bedrock principles – free movement of goods and services. This created in his political philosophy a paradox — Churchill was at once a radical and a traditionalist. He was a radical in changing structures and governmental organisations and arcane laws to facilitate the movement of finance and trade on a more fair and free basis. He was also a radical in his determination to raise the general standard of living, economic opportunity and chance for decent education and welfare. He was a traditionalist in his empathy that the productive capitalistic system as the only guaranteed method of sustaining society and providing a nation with the capability to ensure adequate standards of wealth and progress. It must be protected at all costs – vision must be enjoined by the means to protect its vested interests. Power: In assessing the use of power Churchill’s career and leadership in this regard actually represents Britain’s peculiarity as a Great Power which during its hegemony was formed in the conjunction of three factors: her naval strength, her imperial possessions, and her financial hegemony. Through two stints as First Lord of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Exchequer and through two World Wars, Churchill devoted the lion’s share of his time and energies to upholding these interlocking causes, making it conspicuously clear in the process that he had no intention of presiding over the liquidation of the British Empire. As Chancellor of the Exchequer Churchill presented 5 budgets (1925-1929). In British history only Pitt, Walpole and Gladstone can equal that record. Though vastly entertaining as pieces of oratory and acting adroitness his budgets adhered as much as it was possible to economic orthodoxy. Many times Churchill was accused of slight of hand sophistry in the compilation of his numbers and in the collection of his tax revenue. However, this allegation has been and could be made with more convincing effect against every other Chancellor in this century. What is more important to note is that Churchill’s orthodoxy underpinned the Victorian notion of Britain’s greatness. Churchill was a realist and understood power. Power is really to be embraced and used and is in some ways the centre piece of leadership. To ignore it is to perish. Because of his somewhat apolitical view of the world Churchill could discern very clearly the different perspectives on how nations viewed peace and how any destroyer of peace would appear in various forms to different nations. To prevent war and general international dislocation he at times called for zones and regional structures, including World-Grand Alliances. Power and strength were vital: In his words, “Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble and might be the surest and perhaps the only path to peace.” Though primarily remembered as a war-hungry demagogue, Churchill on at least half a dozen occasions defiantly crusaded against the level and purpose of military spending. These personal programs were driven in part by his political position. That is only a small part of the answer. During the 1920’s Churchill felt that military expenditure was too high and should be curbed given the threat of inflation, the spectre of economic dislocation and the vital investments needed in infrastructure and social programs. These economic indicators drove Churchill to proselytise against excessive taxation and to insist on reviews of defence expenditures. It was necessary Churchill felt, to augment the Royal Air Force allotment and decrease the high administrative costs of the army and look suspiciously into the Royal Navy claims of needing more funding. The cabinet agreed with Churchill: “that the Fighting Services should proceed on the assumption that no great war is to be anticipated within the next ten years” although, “provision should be made for the possible expansion of trained units in case of an emergency arising.” Little of the war-mongerer appears in this sentiment though security was never to be imperilled. Churchill was emphatic that the 10 year rule be reviewed each year. This 10 year dictum uttered in the mid 20’s obviously proved false since in 1936, the Germans seized the Rhineland. Beginning with the rise of Hitler and the stench of his ideology, Churchill began advocating not only a mammoth increase in armament production but also a closer relationship with Russia. Strategy had changed again. This option was proffered from a man who in the early 1920’s had supported the incursion of British soldiers into the heartland of Russia to cleanse it of Bolshevism. Churchill regarded Bolshevism as the lowliest creed and construct of mankind’s civilised history. These adjurations were consistent with his concept of maintaining a balance of power and bargaining from a position of strength, all in the name of effacing and avoiding an evil tumult. It is – and should be – one of the chief reasons for our admiration and support of Churchill that he consistently advocated peace by international understanding and if understanding were to collapse to resist any impingement of freedom by force. But his political courtship of Russia was based on seemingly obvious and important facts. As Churchill previsioned in the early 30’s a new line of French fortifications established only along the French part of the Rhine would enable Germany to attack France through Belgium and Holland. He knew that Germany would not respect the neutrality of the Low Countries in her desire to rip and tear the French to pieces. He also warned that Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Austria and the Baltic’s, were at risk, and that Britain could not detain a German advance into these areas from her current submissive position of weakness. Churchill wanted to station a part of the British fleet in the Baltic to outnumber the German fleet. To achieve measurable, guarded security an alliance with the Bolshies was inevitable, vital and more importantly achievable. If stronger lines had been followed in the 1930’s World War Two could have been avoided. With a ‘Churchillian’ leadership of the world and vision of power and morality we could have escaped the disgusting slaughter of 70 million people. In a 1945 speech to the combined Belgian Senate and Chamber, Churchill stressed what is still surely relevant in our world today; namely the resistance and prevention of dictator aggression: “If the United States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling. Do no forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance.” After the Second World War he continued such pleas arguing in various speeches for France and Germany to bind wounds and for Russia to be a partner with the West in the greater development of a peaceful Europe. When it became obvious that the Soviets intended to challenge if not supplant the West (especially after the communist seizure of power in Czechoslovakia in 1948), than the tone of conciliation turned to a growling of an affronted bulldog as Churchill told American officials, that now is the time, promptly, to tell the Soviets that if they do not retire from Berlin and abandon Eastern Germany, withdrawing to the Polish frontier ‘we will raze their cities’. In his signal ‘Iron Curtain’ speech in Fulton Missouri in 1948 Churchill implored that the UNO must work effectively to prevent another war recognising Russia as a leading nation, remembering the gallantry of its efforts in the last war, and acknowledging its ‘Iron Curtain’ control of Eastern Europe which necessitated the banding and collation of Western strength and might. It is a complex issue and drives to the heart of politics that so many of us view with revulsion – peace through strength and shifting alliances and geopolitical supporters. To understand such necessities today we need to understand the human animal. In scanning leadership and the great broad stretch and gesture of events, the basic construct of the human animal has to be borne in mind. Churchill constantly reminded his associates of the base fact that we really have not changed genetically in the last 100,000 years. DNA and microbiology are 1 of 2 great frontiers of human discovery in the next generation, (the other is information technology). As advances are made in understanding the human genome, advances must also be made in the way society and the leaders of society are structured and educated. Churchill’s view of international affairs was pragmatic though not Machiavellian. He had two basic precepts of security — use history as a guide and foster a balance of power between the strongest lands, and ensure that the internal national health was seasoned and keen. Churchill frequently referred to his debt to those who had laboured before himself as he did to Katherine Asquith, on April 5 1929; “How strange it is that the past is so little understood and so quickly forgotten. We live in the most thoughtless of ages. Every day headlines and short views. I have tried to drag history up a little nearer to our own times in case it should be helpful as a guide in present difficulties.” This enduring commitment to knowledge and of increasing the power, and not the dependency of the layman, both intellectually and politically was the central tenet of Churchill’s political genius. He could combine the new world with the old gleaning the important knowledge from the past, to help shape the institutions of the current and future. To say he was old-fashioned as some critics contend is simplistic. Churchill more than any other figure helped create the modern welfare nation state (though he would be appalled at its size and generosity today), promote peace through strength and ensure that the precarious balance of power between east and west, that was the only stability guaranteed to mankind for 44 years, was not toppled. Pure motives, unflinching devotion to good, ambition stemming from benign aspirations, all lead to quality. As one commentator explained of Pitt, so it could be ascribed to Churchill: “Pitt desired power, and he desired it, we really believe, from high and generous motives. He was, in the strict sense of the word, a patriot. He saw the national spirit sinking.” In conclusion then, we can state that Churchill matches many of those qualities and skills that define true leadership and greatness. It is these defining values that warrant the assertion that Churchill was indeed this century’s most important catalyst in propelling the world to where we are today. And I have not even discussed in detail his stand against Hitler and totalitarianism. Thus, as a new millennium dawns I do believe that if we can revise our current system of educating ourselves and our leaders along the principles already evinced; namely, character, skills, intelligence, vision and understanding power, that we can create a proper cadre of leading men and women and that all of society will benefit from the reduction of intrigue and pettiness. Human nature can be changed, however painfully long it will take. In order to understand how we can do this it is often times necessary to understand how the ‘great’ or historically important at any rate went about it. I don’t think that in the 20th century there has been any more dedicated man who defended the Liberalised view of freedom, economic exchange and human dignity, better than Churchill. For this reason, he should be nominated as the most influential man of the past century. And for this reason his skills and weaknesses should be studied and appreciated with especial care.

Churchill From 1914-1939, and the Unnecessary War

July 12th, 2009 at 05:39pm Under Admiralty Law

In modern times it is useful to learn the travails of the past. Churchill at war, is a perfect example of someone defending the Anglo-Saxon heritage of freedom, division of powers, open markets, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Only Bush, Blair, Brown it is alleged, and some other leaders understand Islam’s threat to Western Civilisation. It is very similar to the universal designs that predatory Nazism and corrupt Communism had upon unsupspecting states. ===== In his own recorded history of the First World War Churchill charges that, like the Second World War, the first was completely unnecessary and could have been prevented if wiser counsels and less weak and pathetically Byzantine alliances were in existence. Britain through covert arrangements finalised before 1914, had committed itself to the French-Russian side of the European chess board though it was never spelled out why or how Britain could or should support either France or Russia in a general engagement against Germany – the predetermined enemy. It was generally agreed in the 3 or 4 years preceding 1914 that Germany would strike for pan-European mastery when her fighting strength was able to contain two fronts – one on the east with Russia and the second in the west with France. The German army was by most accounts superior to the French and her fleet though not nearly as large as the British could still cause deep anxiety at the British admiralty. In fact there never was a decisive engagement between the British and German navies during the First World War, the only notable tangle being the battle of Jutland which gave neither navy an increase in fighting reputation. It was obvious that pre-1914 Britain could bring little influence to bear on the Continent and its small volunteer force was tiny compared to the great conscript armies of Europe. Whether the Liberal government in power in 1914 would have entered the war at all without Germany invading Belgium is open to question. However with typical arrogance Germany ignored the usual British concern over the strategic importance of the Low Countries smashing the Belgian defences and forcing the British to intervene. Unlike their Teutonic cousins the British are not a warrior race and the unpreparedness of British war capacity both in 1914 and 1939 well illustrate this point. British success in the world was premised on free trade and peace and not upon martial prowess and in both world wars the British nation was psychologically unprepared for the conflict. Besides the pending Armageddon in Europe the maintenance of the empire in 1914 was a full task in itself. In 1914 there were 200.000 men under arms in Ireland where a revolt over Home Rule seemed inevitable; in England the miners, the railwaymen and the transport workers were each claiming union recognition for the railwaymen who had thus far been excluded from the TU; and all workers were appealing for a 48 hour work week. As well British forces had to face nationalist troubles in Egypt and India and not to mention in August 1914 the armed and deranged power of a grasping degenerate Germany. The British in short were being racked by the evolutionary and even Darwinian strains of liberalism which its democratic institutions could barely contain and affront. Thankfully for the British war effort many of the domestic squabbles were delayed while the death dance with Germany played on. Domestic problems were sidelined due to the early misfortunes in the war for the British and French forces. The Allies suffered many military reverses and only a stubborn French resistance at the Marne in late 1914 prevented a quick German victory. In fact in 1911 Churchill had predicted this very occurrence in the advent of a Continental war. Churchill had predicted that on the 40th day of the German attack the German line would be thrown back due to Allied resistance and logistical difficulties. On day 41 the French won the battle of the Marne preserving Paris and French freedom. After the battle of the Marne the British nation settled in for a long war. At the outbreak of the hostilities the Navy was more than ready. It transported the British army to France without loss of life and under Churchill’s constant prodding attacked the island of Sylt off the north coast of Germany, sinking a destroyer, a cruiser and crippling five more ships. Churchill at the request of the Secretary of State for War Lord Kitchen, undertook the air defence of the British Isles and dubbed this airfleet the Royal Naval Air Service. He also sponsored the development of the tank, and thanks to his efforts the British were able to use the land carrier with devastating success in the final two years of the war. Without Churchill’s innovative demands and constant championing of the tank concept it may never have seen the battlefield, and may never have played such a decisive part in the fall of Germany in 1918. Churchill began the war as Asquith’s golden boy. But his triumphs were short lived. The first cause for concern was something called the ‘Dunkirk’ Circus. This project was conceived from the trepidation’s that the Huns might capture the channel ports. The French requested assistance in the defence of the Dunkirk perimeter. Kitchen asked Churchill’s help and Winston sent across the channel his naval marines replete with 50 motor omnibuses from London to give them the requisite mobility. The Dunkirk Circus appeared in various towns in the area, giving the Germans the impression that a large force of British regulars was co-operating with the French in the area. It was successful and Churchill spent a good deal of time in France with his marines, much to the chagrin and anger of his colleagues, the Conservatives and the press, who wondered in scathing public rebukes why the First Lord was not at his desk in London doing his job ? The Prime Minister Asquith was not amused with his Alcibiades. Then in late September 1914 Churchill delivered a flamboyant and damning speech in which he made a very unwise observation that soiled his name for years to come, “So far as the Navy is concerned we cannot fight while the enemy remains in port….If they do not come out and fight they will be dug out like rats from a hole.” Well, the very next day three British ships were torpedoed off the Dutch coast and sunk. This was a ‘bait’ squadron which had been ordered 3 days previously to return to England. If this order had been immediately obeyed the loss would have been avoided. His speech posed him in a ridiculous light and coupled with the Dunkirk Circus gave his enemies plenty to hurl his way. The next step of mishappenstance, though again not the direct fault or cause of Churchill, was the fall of Antwerp. In 1914 war tidings were grim. The early German successes in the war in 1914 led Churchill to cross the channel to Antwerp to stiffen the Belgian and Allied defence of the city so crucial for the control of the Channel ports and the north western European coast and indeed in some respects for the safety of Britain, which would lie imperilled if the seaboard was controlled by a violent foe. The Antwerp escapade though it ultimately did not prevent the Germans from taking the city was crucial for defence of the coast since it delayed the German advance down the coast by 3 or 4 vital days allowing the British and French to re-deploy and organise their defences to hold the key channel ports. But this very sound decision of Churchill to lead the defence of Antwerp was vitiated by his clumsy offer to Asquith and the Cabinet to resign and take field duty if he were given the command of sufficient forces to satiate his military ambition. It was a very rash and improbable communication much hailed by his critics as an example of his unreliability. Churchill was forced then to keep himself close to the rudder and he forced himself to remain in London. In so doing came to rely on the productivity and innovation casted off by his relationship with the brilliant old sea dog Jackie Fisher. The Fisher – Churchill combination continued to work at a frenetic rate, Churchill’s political diminishment notwithstanding. After a sharp defeat of a British naval squadron off the coast of Chile, spirit and prestige was revived when the German admiral Von Spee was killed off the Falkland Islands with the loss of his whole squadron. It was a smashing victory and redemption for the Churchill-Fisher combination. Then suddenly Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany, and Russia demanded that the Allies take action in the Middle East to draw off some Turkish pressure on Russian forces. Churchill at once seized upon the idea – offered on many occasions – of forcing the fortresses that flanked the narrow straits of the Dardanelles by a naval operation alone that would allow the Allies to capture Constantinople and push Turkey out of the war. The attack was given Cabinet approval and went ahead at first as a naval operation. On February 19 the fleet opened up the bombardment of the straits. Kitchen a short while later promised troops. For the first 10 days the attack went well with the outer fortresses falling. Then suddenly the progress stopped. Turkish resistance was much stiffer than anticipated and sea mines were causing damage and anxiety to the British and French navies. On March 18th 1915 the Allied navy massed for a decisive attack and blasted the shores with such a cannonade that most of the defences were swept away. The navy steamed on to what seemed to be victory when the vessels struck a row of mines sinking 3 older ships and crippling four more. The attack was called off and the naval officers after some deliberation refused to continue the attack unless the army intervened and commenced a land campaign. Churchill was apoplectic. He felt that victory was in sight but he could not force his naval commanders to reengage. Local commanders had ultimate authority and direction at the scene and the military command in London which was not organised properly to enact final decisions or reach a connected vision of strategy, could do little to impress its views on men thousand of miles away. Five long precious weeks were wasted until the French, Anzac and British troops stormed the Gallipoli shores. Surprise as a variable was cast away, the Turks and their German allies had mounted an intricate and obdurate system of defences and German submarines began to appear in the domain complicating the operation. Gradually the Navy pulled out and left the whole task to Kitchener’s army which straggled and floundered on the rocky shores locked in strife with a desperate enemy in control of the high points of the landscape. In December 1915 Gallipoli was evacuated with well over a quarter of a million French, British and Anzac casualties. Churchill supported by later historians and enemy documents makes a very convincing argument for himself and the Gallipoli attack in his fascinating book on World War One, The World Crisis. It is known that the Turkish gunners during the last naval assault of March 18 had only enough ammunition to fight one more such action. The Turkish and German defenders were astonished that the British had not pushed forward. In fact the German naval gunners had already determined that the Navy would win and that holding out much longer was hopeless. Most experts agree that a combined land-sea operation would have succeeded. Churchill should be faulted for not being patient enough to wait until the army was ready for such a combined assault. He was too enamoured of a naval-only success. However, in his defence it is certain that the amateurish, haphazard decision making around the operation, with no clear cut authority and overall plan was not his fault. Remarkably no machinery of consultation existed between the naval and army departments and consequently Churchill’s power to persuade and help control complex co-ordinated operations was severely limited. This was not helped by the absolute dominance of the war lord, Kitchener. He was not just a hero, but a god, a famous general with great successes recorded in Egypt, the Sudan and South Africa. If the government had been better organised and more cohesive the war could have conceivably ended in 1915, with Turkey knocked out of the war, the Russian armies fighting the Turks in the Caucasus liberated to direct their fury against the Germans, the Balkans enlisted on the side of the Allies and Allied armies pouring into the soft, unprotected ‘underbelly’ of Germany. If successful Gallipoli could have saved millions of lives. However Fisher resigned over the Dardanelles fiasco and this coupled with Antwerp, the Dunkirk circus, the apparent loss of paramount naval supremity and Gallipoli all forced Churchill to resign. Ten months earlier he was one of the most powerful men in England. Gallant, brave, an accomplished writer and orator, blessed with boundless energy and close relationships with key politico’s, his star’s lustre was dazzling and its light appeared to shine far into the future. Yet by 1915 though he was only 40 it appeared to many that his career was finished. He still had a quality of immaturity possessed of great ideas but with no real or stable sense of proportion. The relinquishment of power was bitter as Churchill wrote “I knew everything but could do nothing.” Little else can describe the painful forfeiture of power better. What brought about this rapid de-elevation ? The answer lies in his personality. Much of the blame was unfair. He was the most important and vital minister in Britain during this period and had rendered valuable service in the cause of freedom. His small but gallant Naval Air Force was scouting German Zeppelins with increasing success, the Dunkirk Circus had fooled the Germans into believing that forty thousand British regulars threatened their flank and forced them into retreat, and the prolongation of the Antwerp defence had saved the channel ports from Hunnish occupation. It was more the flamboyance and self-assuredness of the First Lord that aroused suspicions and opposition. Churchill forgot that he was a politician and therefore had to tie either the Conservatives or Liberals to his tail to create a following. Not doing so appointed the day for his expulsion from the government when the vicissitudes of fate came calling. The Conservatives still hated him and some of his Liberal colleagues were overwhelmed by the man’s ambition and capacity. From most accounts it is safe to say that Churchill was not a well liked fellow in either a political or personal sense. His parliamentary colleagues recognised his genius but he offended their amour-propre. People did not interest Churchill but ideas. His absorption in his own affairs illuminated a vanity that was hard for some to accept. Churchill’s incisive, compelling monologues tended to disregard the feelings and opinions of his audience and created the aura of gross insensibility which is a determined flaw in a democratic statesman who must not only expand ideas but impel others to accept them. To assuage his sorrow Churchill headed to the front lines in 1915 in command of a brigade and experienced life and very nearly death in the trenches. Though it was a political difficulty, his scope of power was increased to that of a battalion commander in Belgium, though Churchill knew that a substantial military career was not to be his. His battalion – the Royal Scots Fusiliers – were nonplussed that a politician had been thrusted into their midst. On his second day with the group Churchill won over his men by gathering the officers together and announcing solemnly; “War is declared, gentlemen, on the lice.” This was followed by an erudite and expanded lecture on the origin, growth, and nature of the louse, with particular emphasis on its decisive role in the history of warfare. The officers were not only amused and shocked, but fascinated. With the spectacle of a great and creative mind bursting with hard work and focused on the comparatively small needs of a battalion, excitement and activity was assured. Churchill especially impressed his men by his coolness under fire and the complete lack of nervousness with bullets spluttering about as he would almost recklessly expose himself to enemy fire. By all accounts he was a trusted and quite effective Leader – interested in all details of the men, their methods and wants, the operations and the enforcement of military discipline and fairness. Though only at the front for over four months it gave Churchill a comprehensive experience of the horrors and follies of war and the undeniable bestial conditions that the men at the front fought, lived and died in. Churchill was however a Leader and a statesman and not a warrior at the core of his being. When the combination of battalions ended his military career he took the opportunity to race back to London to participate in political opposition and await the detailed investigation of the Dardanelles event by a special commission. Churchill was anxious that his character and public career should receive a fair hearing. The Dardanelles report was published in 1917 and gave Churchill a rather favourable press, severely criticising the Prime Minister Asquith, for his handling of the War Cabinet and for Kitchen who as Secretary of War did not send troops sooner. Churchill was not exonerated but importantly for him not crucified by the commission. A resuscitation of his political career was now possible. In 1916 Lloyd George claiming a liberal-democratic war, based on crusading moral principles and responsibilities, became Prime Minister and was masterful in his management of the British war effort. Indeed many historians have suggested that without his leadership of Britain during the war, victory may have come later if at all. Domestic disputes were still quiescent though less so after the 1917 Russian revolution, where Russia was ripped open by the wolfish, bloodthirsty Bolsheviks which knocked it out of the war and gave Europe the misguided but enthusiastically received messianic appeal of bolshevism in its war weary nations. This dulled the appetite of Britain and France to fight on. Men of mettle. intelligence and dedicated to ultimate victory were therefore needed and George wanted Churchill’s energies and imagination and great leadership capacity working for the government and not skulking on the opposition benches tearing holes in government policy. Though the opposition to Churchill was extremely intense especially in Conservative circles, Churchill was appointed as Minister of Munitions in 1917. The noise against his appointment was deafening especially astonishing Churchill who was deeply unaware at the amount of hostility that he had created in political circles. Since Churchill was officially an independent candidate and not a member of either the Liberal or Conservative Party he was not included in the War Cabinet which curtailed his activities probably to his own benefit. As George recorded in his memoirs, “Unfortunately genius always provides its critics with material for censure — it always has and always will. Churchill is certainly no exception to this rule.” At the Ministry of Munitions Churchill took over the control of a huge organisation composed of 12000 civil servants in 50 departments. Churchill combined the 50 groups into less than a dozen new ones and he set up a Council of business men somewhat like the Board of Admiralty and over the business men he put a clamping committee, small and powerful to direct affairs. The organisation was a triumph. This Ministry covered an enormous field – it was not only responsible for guns and shells but for all sorts of rolling stock and the design and production of aircraft as well. Churchill had to appreciably increase the munitions for the tank and machine gun corps which he did extraordinarily quickly and also to supply the American military with supplies until the USA could bring their factories onto a war footing. He in effect made a gentlemen’s agreement by which the UK promised not to make a profit and the USA promised to make good a loss. The deal worked spectacularly. Winston established extremely cordial relations with his counterpart in Washington – Bernard Baruch – who was to become indispensable for Britain in its World War Two efforts to receive American armaments during the dark days of 1940 and 1941. The appalling and senseless First World War sank deep into consciousness of the British nation and explains why bolshevism was granted receptive audiences throughout Europe and why the nations of Europe were eager to appease Hitler 20 years later. At the Battle of the Somme a British offensive in 1916 claimed 420.000 British casualties in one month. From August to September 1917 at Paaschendaele Belgium, 300.000 Empire soldiers were wounded or killed in a campaign to claim a few square miles of territory with many of the victims drowned in torrential rains. Even after the successful conclusion of the war with the dramatic and sudden German disintegration in the early summer of 1918 the British and French populace could never erase the carnage and mindless mutilation of 4 years of war and became profoundly anti-war and pro-pacifist. This pacifist feeling and urge to rebuild a better world was manifest in the 1918 election where Lloyd George and his coalition government retained power. At this juncture the Liberal party, once the prime mover in all that was progressive and enlightened, was all but finished, weak, divided and without firm mass support. The Conservatives took the urban vote, and the Labour party the worker vote. The Trade Unions on which Labour depended became enormously strengthened by the war experience and their membership doubled to roughly over 8 million by 1919. Given the voting reforms in 1918 this power became effectively used as the electorate was extended from about 8 million in 1914, to over 21 million in 1918. After the successful close of the First World War the Imperial mystique was powerful and even enhanced. British possessions in the Middle East and Africa grew, with concomitant increases in raw material resource including oil. It appeared that British economic strength given the severity of the peace reprisals hoisted upon Germany and the minimisation of her once severe economic threat, could enjoy something of a comeback. In the 1920’s under Lloyd George all major industries were returned to private hands. The Government also began trumpeting a consistent financial policy to ensure an eventual return to the Gold Standard, meaning that the City of London, the British class system, and private capitalism all appeared to continue unchallenged. However fiscal reality overshadowed the blissful feeling of Empire grandeur. Financial and military constraints to manage the Empire were severe and India with its growing nationalism was becoming ever more of a moral and financial burden. There was a huge increase from the war effort in national debt and the subsequent loss of foreign markets especially in Germany and France. Lloyd George had also committed his government to the necessary but costly endeavour of building 200.000 houses for immediate public purchase in 1919. Massive post-war unemployment was fast becoming a crippling political problem for the British government, as was the realisation that perhaps the greatest threat to international stability was the narrow minded, nescient Versailles Peace Treaty effected in 1919. Covert, secret treaties concluded during the war between Britain and its allies, with unjust terms for financial reparations from Germany as described by J.M. Keynes’ ‘Economic Consequences of the Peace’ written in 1919, showed conclusively that the reparations imposed on Germany would lead to its financial ruin and thereby to the permanent weakening of the European economy. Keynes also devoted eloquent, penetrating prose, in describing the corrupt atmosphere of the Versailles arrangement and in particular Lloyd George’s debasing and unstatesmanlike conduct. Churchill though he was the most visible advocate of better social conditions was assigned by George as the Secretary of State for War and Air. This was a key position in post war Europe, a Continent which was far from stable and where, the insipidity of Bolshevism was threatening to take over Germany. Churchill and others promulgated that given these internal disruptions a certain magnanimity towards Germany would be prudent since she was and is the central player in the concert of Europe. In fact the Bolshevist menace occupied a great deal of Churchill’s energies in 1919 and 1920. He firmly believed that if enough Western material and support were offered to the non-Bolshie forces in Russia, Lenin’s precarious revolution which during these years was in great danger of being eclipsed by military forces loyal to the Russian monarchy and to a lesser degree supportive of democracy could be eradicated. That Bolshevism was foul baboonery was obvious to any but the most ardent and simple socialist utopian. Lloyd George however considered that the Russian anti-Bolshevist generals were not liberal democrats and that foreign intervention counter-productive and expensive. And though Churchill was right about Bolshevism being imposed by force, Britain was too exhausted by the Great War to intervene militarily or even spiritually. The prospect of another conflict was too horrifying to consider and most of the volunteers in the army were clamouring to be disbanded. Thus in part through Western weakness the irrationality of Bolshevism laid its clawed hand on the heart of Russia. A tragedy still apparent in the mindset, lost integrity and general disarray of the Russian people and nation today. After dispensing with his duties as Secretary of War, Churchill was directed by George to sort out painful and essential problems in the Colonial Office. In the brief 18 months of 1921-22 when Winston was Secretary for the Colonies he justly claimed the mantle of peace maker. He enacted two very important settlements. The first was in the Middle East. Churchill still carried the great hope that Britain would conduct itself in a pure manner regarding native or colonial populations and government. His experience taught him that democracy was not applicable at all times in all locations to all peoples, yet fair government rested not on military power but on moral law. Churchill in effect cut military deployment and largess in the colonies especially in the newly acquired territories in the Middle East where Air power was substituted in some measure for troops to garrison the Empire. It was in this quarter as well that Churchill strove gamely within the British protectorate of Palestine to broker peace between the Jews and Arabs, and to push the idea of a Jewish state in the region in accordance with the Balfour declaration of 1917 which stated that the Jews were to be accorded a national home in the Middle East. Churchill was convinced that Zionism would bring with it prosperity if only peace could be arranged between the implacable parties. He called upon the aid of the amazing Englishman Lawrence of Arabia, and settled in Cairo during a conference, the grievances of all concerned parties. The proposals were sent to Cabinet. First, the British must appease Arab emotion by placing the Emir Feisal on the throne of Iraq and transfer to his brother the Emir Abdulla the government of the Transjordan. Secondly, British troops must be withdrawn from Iraq and order maintained via the Air Force. Thirdly, adjustments must be made between the Arabs and Jews that would serve as a sure foundation for peace. In sum it was a proper and practicable arrangement and with it the acceptance of the proposals, tension in the Middle East declined dramatically. At this time Ireland also raised itself after the war eager for Home Rule and a resolution to its problems. It was a violent land with Sinn Fein outside of Northern Ireland dominant and using force to implement its rule. Churchill as Colonial Secretary in 1921 was entrusted to keep military control and internal peace until proper democratic procedures could be enacted to appease the demands of the Catholic South. To restore the military balance on the island Churchill recruited Ulster men to patrol Ireland and to meet violence with violence. Though clashes ensued both sides and the British government could find enough common ground to effect the transfer of power to Southern Ireland as a dominion, effective December 6 1922. Churchill’s part as a conciliatory statesman, ignoring the clamour of extremists from both sides and unbowed by military threats was crucial and leading. The world seldom thinks of Churchill as a conciliator but in this case he worked tirelessly and sagaciously to defuse an intricate and maddeningly emotional dispute. He handled innumerable situations with tact, writing repeatedly to the leaders involved, smoothing away misunderstandings, emphasising goodwill, minimalising petty conduct, praising, extolling and suggesting. In the end the tragedy of Ireland final settled down to peace. In the fall of 1922 a national election transpired which effectively destroyed the Liberal party and forced Churchill to make his way towards the Conservatives. Public disapproval and weariness with the coalition or ‘national’ government of Lloyd George had reached new heights of fervent expression. Since 1916 George had sat upon the pinnacle of British public duty. However George’s persistent womanising and remote, Olympian and not entirely trust worthy character had defaced to some degree the validity of his rule. Public disgruntlement at its Leadership became irreversibly hardened in 1922 when Britain was on the verge of war with Turkey over the defence of the Greek position in Asia minor and the protection of the Dardanelle straits. War did not erupt, but Lloyd George and his government including Churchill were tossed from office and Ramsay MacDonald, the utopian Leader of the leftist Labour party became Prime Minister. Macdonald was challenged by the stable and peaceful Stanley Baldwin the Conservative Leader, Prime Minister in 1923-24, 1924-1929, and 1935-7. Both Macdonald and Baldwin were appropriate shepherds for a country that desperately wanted peace and safety and to escape the horrors of war. Churchill also lost his working class seat in Dundee Scotland and was banished into exile for 2 years. It is peculiar that an aristocrat would have as his political base a blue collar, sweated town such as Dundee which had absolutely nothing in common with an Oxfordshire squire. Barred from public duty by the election result Churchill spent most if his time with the family, writing, painting and patiently biding time until the political scene cleared and opportunity would be revealed. In this period Churchill began his massive history of the First World War. The five volumes of the “World Crisis” as it was called, were published between 1923 and 1931. It is a truly significant work about national, international and personal power. It is not so much a history as a colourful drama, with Churchill never far from the centre stage. It was a eulogy to the decaying grasp of British domination of the world scene, with 1922 revealing the spread of socialism engulfing Europe, with Ireland and Egypt lost as independents from the Empire and the first ever Labour Party in power. Much had changed and much was still in train to be altered since Churchill had first entered Parliament 21 years earlier. Across the globe peaceful hopes were supreme. Martial glory was dreaded. The new doctrinaire of peace and rebuilding was reflected in British arts represented by the literary Bloomsbury group — a creative association that included Virginia Woolf and E.M. Forster, both intimating through their novels a decline of Western liberal self confidence in the face of rising competition and corruption. In the mid 1920’s Britain was a society rapidly changing and transmuting. Large proportions of the population had emerged from the war with middle class aspirations; home ownership, a quiet contented family, leisure, domestic comforts and employment security. There was a gradual erosion of church and puritan values with ‘smart young things’ wearing less restrictive and dour costumes and fewer young people openly religious. The rural population declined steadily as unemployment in the non-urban areas grew and families migrated to the city to locate work. In 1923 an event occurred which proved extremely advantageous for the career of Churchill. Bonar Law the Conservative Prime Minister and Winston’s intractable political opponent resigned and soon afterwards died, leaving Stanley Baldwin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Prime Minister. Baldwin was a stolid, pipe smoking, shrewd English politician dedicated to eradicating unemployment which at that time hovered around the one million mark. He was a protectionist, an advocate of high tariffs to stimulate economic growth and employment. But since Bonar Law had pledged in the 1922 election to do exactly the opposite, Baldwin needed a mandate from the public to initiate such reform. Baldwin thus picked the only issue capable of uniting all Liberals into one unit. Churchill fought as a Liberal Free Trader at West Leicester, noisy and excited. His violent denunciations of the Labour party and of socialism, drew packed houses and infuriated his opponents, who pitched any and all recriminations they could lay their hands on. Churchill was so bitterly hated by a large section of the working class that when he spoke on 3 December 1923 in London, the city was obliged the send both mounted and foot police as protection. Churchill described the crowd as “..more like Russian wolves than British workmen – if they are British workmen – howling, foaming, and spitting, and generally behaving in a way absolutely foreign to the British working classes.” Churchill lost by four thousand votes. Overall no party could command enough seats to form a government. The Labour and Liberal parties formed a coalition with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister. Another election was soon inevitable since a Labour government held in power by Liberal support could never hope to enact change. The Labour party had an equal share of Liberal minded men such as MacDonald and radicals intent on real socialism. Shortly thereafter a Conservative seat fell vacant in Westminster London. Churchill at once set about getting himself adopted as the Conservative candidate. His powerful Tory friends intervened on his behalf but to no avail. The Conservative party adopted the nephew of the retiring Conservative member. Churchill continued undaunted calling himself an anti-socialist independent. Many Tories supported Churchill. There was a fear that since Westminster was a Conservative stronghold Churchill’s candidacy might split the Conservative vote and allow Labour to win. Churchill fought the campaign entirely against the Socialists. Blood, thunder, doom and ruin were interwoven with tales of tragic incompetence if Labour would lay its hands on power. Notable peers, Conservative members and newspapers canvassed for him. Despite the glittering support Churchill lost by 43 votes to the Conservative candidate Nicholson. Churchill was far from downcast. The road at least to the Conservatives was clear. His Liberal bridge lay burned and the support of so many notable Conservatives gave him great heart. He was positioned as the most powerful Conservative weapon against a socialistic revolution. After nine months of governing the Liberals finally withdrew their support from MacDonald’s and another election was called in the fall of 1924. Churchill fought in this election as a Conservative at Epping and was victorious. His remarkable journey back to a party that reflected his ideals of economic orthodoxy, social reform and colonial morality was complete. It staggered his enemies who could not believe that he had once again switched party flags. Soon after this victory and remarriage Churchill somewhat incredibly became Chancellor. It was an amazing transformation. Since 1918 Churchill had made a steady if not swift progression to his natural political home of conservatism. The Liberal party had by 1922 outlived its usefulness. Churchill had no choice if he prized his political future but to join the Conservatives. That Stanley Baldwin gave Churchill the second most important post in the government dazed even the staunchest of Churchill’s supporters. Given the complex spectacle and challenges of post war finances, reparation schedules, the gold standard issue and the grappling of the debt problem, the Chancellorship in the mid-20’s would prove to be an extremely laborious effort. Why did Baldwin give Churchill the second most powerful position in the nation ? He simply feared Churchill and especially the political and oratorical combination of Churchill and Lloyd George. If Churchill was left out of power, a Centre Party with Churchill and Lloyd George and the Conservative orator and Churchillian supporter F.E. Smith could conceivably be formed dissipating greatly any governmental power base. Baldwin had no desire to be blasted by 3 such heavyweights. An astute party manager, Baldwin forced Churchill to accede to the Chancellorship where party pressure would keep him in line. Or so he hoped. And indeed in donning the robes once worn by his father Churchill showed himself a loyal and capable supporter of Baldwin and his government. Though not trained in the world of commerce or finance Churchill mastered his post with precipitate speed and enjoyment challenging the experts and doctrinaires on all policy issues. However the mid-late 1920’s decline in exports and decreased employment opportunities in the export trades can be in large part traced to his decision to return Britain to the Gold Standard. This decision can be regarded as a rather disastrous move. In fact Churchill’s tenure at the Exchequer was marred by strife and labour bitterness, depression and industrial disquiet. Most of this calamity can be traced to business and financial pressure exerted upon British governments beginning in 1918 to return the British pound to the pre-World War 1 Gold Standard rate. A standing committee of experts appointed by the Lloyd George Government in 1918 to investigate the position urged that the decision be accepted and only the emphatic and brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes raised a howl of objection. In 1925 Britain sat between two stools of economic philosophy of society. On one sat the school of market determination insisting that wages and prices are calculated by the strict, inviolable laws of supply and demand. Upon the other resided the Keynesians, preaching a managed economy and limited but effective government interference and resource allocation. Though Keynes intellectually gnarled the return to Gold he very importantly did not offer an alternative. The political and business pressure on Churchill to keep the parliamentary promise and return the country to gold was immense. It was viewed as a way to defuse inflation since the government would be constrained in its printing of money. All of Britain’s major economic partners had adopted or soon would pass under the heel of the Gold Standard. And though Churchill repeatedly hesitated imploring his civil officials to defy Keynes’ predictions he could find no plausible alternative to what many had expected to be a fait accompli. The result meant a serious overvaluing of British Coal and Steel exports and generally exacerbated the inequality of comforts among the classes that divided the nation. Unfortunately for Churchill and his government economic woes dovetailed with sagging spirits. In much of the West there arose in the mid-late 1920’s a certain disappointment with Western values and the terrible cycle of industrial decline, unemployment, and social bitterness led to the worst explosion of class conflict that Britain had yet known in 1926. In April of that year Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin refused to renew a subsidy to the coal industry. This subsidy was considered essential to maintain the coal industry’s productive capability, and its repeal ignited a class-based nation wide general strike in early May 1926. For nine days the country literally stopped functioning. As the struggle between the government and the unions deepened Churchill was again the most active member of the government to quell the disturbance basically commanding the creation and publication of a special government newspaper to keep the public informed about the strike, the position of the government and the developments at garnering reconciliation. Thankfully it was bloodless and the strike ended abruptly. However, the class divisiveness engendered by the strike plagued the nation for at least the next 20 years or more with 1926 injustice being revived as late as the 1984-5 coal disputes. This was the signal event of his Chancellorship. After the excitement of the strike, balancing budgets, limiting unemployment and reducing income taxes became Churchill’s standard fare. He did not enact any other change as effacing or important as the return to Gold. The most notable feature of Churchill’s remaining tenure from 1926-1929 as Chancellor was his stubborn defence of free trade and economic orthodoxy. As the months passed on Churchill’s bellicose defence of free trade began to rattle and decrease his own status within the Conservative party, where many, including Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, favoured protection to give British industry relief from the high rates of unemployment. Churchill demurred and would not countenance such unorthodox blasphemy. For his colleagues this became a point of frustration. This was elevated in degree by Winston’s dominating, energetic manner. His colleagues were beginning to tire of Churchill’s overpowering presence, clever memoranda, forays into departments other than his own, and the vast literature of ideas and action points. Baldwin confided to a friend that Churchill’s lack of team skills was a disadvantage that outweighed his contributions and that he would not want Churchill in another government. He and his successors kept this promise, and Churchill was ostracised from office and power from 1929 to 1939. In 1929 Baldwin’s government went to the polls. Labour emerged as the largest party and formed a government with Liberal support and Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister for the second time. In 1931 MacDonald deserted the Labour party and joined forces with the Conservatives in forming a National Government to deal with the financial crisis produced by the crash of Wall Street in 1929. This National Government was primarily Conservative in nature and though MacDonald was Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin was the real power broker and King maker. This was the dawning age of the common man, where the spoils of power, prestige and money were to be distributed to a greater swath of society than ever before. The 1930’s marked the rise of the common man’s perception that society’s ills were not being repaired. He began to doubt the wisdom of being ruled by his so-called ‘betters’, those of the oligarchic aristocratic powerful elite, who by birth, money or talent and energy had hoisted themselves up to the summit of the noble ruling range. Was this system to continue indefinitely, the common man began to ask ? And as he surveyed the scene of poverty, unemployment, lost opportunity and vast resources wasted on war and death, he rightly began to question why it was that security, proper wages, better education and health were eluding his grasp ? Industrial and political control became mandatory and very quickly the common man became the richest political prize and a requirement for all politicians to woo and master. Churchill was concerned that the Labour party, in the early stages of its development lacked the resolve and skill to govern. Largely this was correct. He did and could not blame the working man for erupting against the grave state of unemployment and desiring the fulfilment of hopes and promises. However, he was sceptical of magical remedies to cure the issue of 1-2 million men out of work. The great Keynes forwarded a mammoth plan of large borrowings for public works to relieve unemployment which Churchill readily denounced with veracity as ‘camouflaged inflation’. Thankfully neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative opposition were tempted by such schismatic views. Balanced budgets, and acceptable wage and price levels were deemed the wisest course. Though it can never be forwarded that Churchill was a brilliant economist, he did have a solid grasp of the underlying principles of sound finance. What was distasteful to Winston was the blight that party politics radiated upon important economic questions. In June 1930 he delivered a lecture at Oxford University sponsoring the suggestion that economics must be separated from politics, “I see no reason why the political Parliament should not choose in proportion to its Party groupings a subordinate Economic Parliament of say one-fifth of its numbers, and composed of persons of high technical and business qualifications. This idea has received much countenance in Germany. I see no reason why such an assembly should not debate in the open light of day and without caring a half-penny who won the General Election, or who had the best slogans for curing unemployment, all the grave economic issues by which we are now confronted afflicted. I see no reason why the Economic Parliament should not for the time being command a greater interest than the political Parliament; nor why the political Parliament should not assist it with its training and experience in methods of debate and procedure. What is required is a new personnel adapted to the task which has to be done, and pursuing that task day after day without the distractions of other affairs and without fear, favour or affection.” This was met with a cold indifference and Churchill found himself almost alone in its avocation. To compensate the pen provided distraction and he wrote his autobiography My Early Life, quite an amusing tale that finishes with his entrance into Parliament and his marriage ending with the words, “I married and lived happily ever afterwards.” The public was amazed by the tolerant and gentle humour of the work, much of it directed against himself. It was not the evocations of a combustible politician, but more the reflections of a man detached from life’s strife and living on high, above the corrupt daily battle of the House of Commons. This was soon followed by series of newspaper articles and essays ranging in subject from one on ‘Moses’ to ‘Shall We All Commit Suicide?’, bounded and reprinted in a book called Thoughts and Adventures. The last literary piece to appear in the early 30’s was the thick fifth volume of the First World War, The World Crisis, The War on the Eastern Front. Also revealing but seldom known was that Churchill seldom spent a week-end away from his country house, Chartwell, which was close enough to London that a long troupe of friends would motor down for dinner engagements. Winston’s preferred element of relaxation was ardent political debate, late into the evening, with an early waking, working in bed, smoking of a large cigar and the afternoons engaged in children, farming and building. Churchill loved construction. He built a tree-top house, a goldfish pond, a bathing pool, a cottage, a brick wall, dammed a lake, and made miniature waterfalls. This love of design sprang from his interest in applying a methodical and systemic technique. The appeal of writing stemmed from matching sentences together to form paragraphs which then had to be arranged into a coherent pattern. Such it was with the creation of physical objects. The fabrication of the cottage and long wall induced Churchill, the arch-Conservative, to join the bricklayer’s association as a professional that could lay one brick per minute. Needless to say the Labour party was unamused. The public had no opportunity to see this side of the man; devoted to animals, family and estate projects. To the general mass Winston was pugnacious and formidable with a robotic appetite for work, a brilliant mind, unstable character and a flaming ambition. Churchill’s immersion and occupation in the scholarly world was disturbed by one of the great debates in British history. In the early to mid 1930’s it was India – and the granting of nationhood to India – which dominated Churchill’s activities as he sat out of power. The Liberal, Conservative and Labour parties all supported the extension of dominion or independence to India and the details of the bill were in the hands of a multiparty commission. The Viceroy’s of India (Lord Halifax followed by Lord Irwin) were in favour of granting India the freedom that she demanded; first in drawing up a Federal Constitution; and second in extending self-government in Dominion status. Undoubtedly public opinion had been sharpened by the protracted struggle and lessons of Ireland. India was simply requesting what had already been granted to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was much to be lost by ruling with repressive force and much to gain by granting concessions and acting in accordance with the inclinations of a great subcontinent. Churchill was adamantly opposed to any relinquishment of British control or influence. He was almost alone in his extreme criticism. And though his opponents used some chicanery to push the India Bill through Parliament Churchill’s hard and prickly position alienated and diminished his stature. His Demosthenic railings against Indian self determination were viewed with suspicion and then scorn by his contemporaries. Winston passionately and correctly believed that India was indispensable for the maintenance of the British Empire – it was certainly the jewel in the crown. Without it the rest of Britain’s imperialistic holdings would surely slip away. He also correctly surmised that without the resources and captive markets of the great subcontinent Britain could have difficulty surviving as a prosperous country and that once granted independence India would be riven with sectarian violence and bloodshed. However his obstinate badgering and negative criticasting did not prevent the bill from being given Parliamentary approval in 1935 as it rightly deserved. You cannot keep a subcontinent like India in permanent subjugation. The Conservative party was outraged with Churchill’s obduracy over a 5 year period in trying to kill the India bill. Churchill was always consistent in his advocacy that India was inseparable from fortune in the affairs of Britain. However his pronounced, rash and incongruous campaign severed his ties with the Conservatives. He was a Tory in name, but the wilderness was his home. He became a political untouchable for much of the 1930’s. Legendary, brash, and self serving, or so the great mass believed when Churchill’s name was invoked. Though Churchill had a mystical belief in his own greatness and ultimate destiny most of his friends conceded during the early 1930’s that his career was finished. He had now quarrelled heavily with all three parties. The boats were burnt, there was no retreat. The Conservatives had quite reluctantly forgiven him once, and now that their suspicions had in their own minds been justified by Churchill’s extremity over India they were unlikely to grant absolution a second time. The Liberal Party was dead and the Labour party viewed Churchill as the Beelzebub of the House of Commons. In what direction lay the future ? Strangely enough, when opportunity appeared at low ebb, Churchill began in 1931 the work on his famous ancestor the Duke of Marlborough which prepared him for the challenges of leadership during World War Two. It was the sweat, thought and inspiration poured into this literary masterpiece with its own story of weakness, subterfuge, tyranny and salvation that so peculiarly mirrored the events of the Second World War. This indoctrination prepared Churchill beautifully for the leadership of Britain at the darkest hour in its history. Ever since he was a young lad, Winston had consumed all the information he could imbibe on his great forbear John Churchill. Here was a tale that contained every element of drama; the story of the poor youth who came from unknown origins to become one of the greatest generals of all time and who saved England and half of Europe from the despotic maniacal control of France’s King Louis the XIV; of the pretty youth who fascinated the King of England’s mistress; the ambitious man who became the richest man in Europe; the sought after hero who loved his wife with unbounded passion for over 50 years; the conquering god who never lost a battle; the political diplomatist who ruled England by effective power during his tenure as war-lord. Nothing was missing. It was the perfect tale of dash, flash, glory and power. Love, war, espionage, revolution, King’s, Queen’s, romance and success all weaved and threaded themselves into one astonishing life. It is small wonder that Winston became attracted to writing this thrilling record. The skill of Churchill’s account resides in his ability to bring all of the characters into life. The complicated relations are dealt with at a confident brilliant pace, and reveals a century (late 17th to early 18th) of resounding change. As a literary piece it compares with Tolstoy’s War and Peace and as an artistic expression it has few historical equals. Thankfully this story of power and struggle was not written by a historian but by a politician hobbying as a historian. Only a man who understood the current of political life could have written such a detailed and satisfying explanation of the jostling that takes place in political circles. Even more vital it was a theme of freedom and the restoration of England’s and of Europe’s independence. Such a thesis fuelled all of the innermost fires of Churchill’s fibre, “Since the duel between Rome and Carthage there had been no such world war. It involved all the civilised peoples; it extended to every part of the accessible globe; it settled for some time or permanently the real relative wealth and power, and the frontiers of every important European state.” These words were written during 1933, the year Hitler came to power. Away from artistic endeavours Churchill began to discharge time and energy into comprehending and communicating the threat of Hitler’s Germany, collecting testaments and information on the gravity of Hitler’s menace from all parties and sources. Winston in his speeches consistently exhorted a full support of the League of Nations and tried to draw Russia into a Grand Alliance to ring and contain German ambition. However, his appeals rang hollow in the halls of the pacifist democracy and in the circles of power. Almost by default it appeared that the dove Ramsay Macdonald, and his Labour party would be a reliable guide to lead affairs for the 1930’s. Militarism was scorned and war in the 1930’s dismissed and pressing economic questions had to be resolved. The second Labour government under Macdonald was a disaster, not only due to ministerial incompetence but also to the stock crash, and the financial derangement which drove unemployment to over 3 million men, hastening the decline of important first and secondary industries, and showing to the world the inefficient work practices, and dearth of British business and entrepreneurial skills. British society was in tumult during the 1930’s. In 1936 fascist Italy was busy conquering Ethiopia, and Franco was waging civil war in Spain supported by Germany and Italy against the government. In both cases the British government adhered to non-intervention though public psychology was greatly stirred by the Spanish war and Jewish refugees brought home the nightmare of Hitler’s Germany. Still the election of the Conservative party and Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister confirmed the people’s desire not to get involved with Europe or at least not another Continental war – no matter how bitter and distasteful they might find the events. MacDonald was replaced in the mid thirties by the decaying Conservative Leader Stanley Baldwin who with his faltering powers was no more effective than his predecessor in curing the employment and economic problems ruining British society. But remarkably and in a very British-like manner, the UK compared to the Continent, displayed a great stability and affinity for liberal democratic governance and law. Whilst the baboonery of fascism skipped and capered in Germany, Italy. Japan and Spain, and whilst Russia was raped by the Bolshevik monsters, Britain, saddled with a distressing economic and social condition showed no real inclination (outside of a small fringe that supported Oswald Mosley’s fascist party) to gravitate towards revolution or anarchy. It was superhumanly stable. This lasted until 1937. This mood of pacifist peace began to harden itself and grow bitter. The change of attitude was not due to domestic disunity but forced by foreign affairs. The rise of the demented Hitler finally drew a response in 1937 in the form of a British commitment to increase military preparedness. In 1936 Hitler marched into the allied occupied Rhinelands in direct infringement of the Versailles treaty. Only Churchill called for a military response. It was a gigantic bluff on the part of Hitler. France was immobile with fear and refused to move without British support. Baldwin would not commit himself and urged the French to take the matter to the League of Nations. As we know today, if the French army had advanced into the Rhine area scarcely a shot would have to have been fired to disperse the German force. Hitler had occupied the Rhineland in direct violation of his Chief of Staff advice with only a handful of troops. The democracies were inert and Hitler rightly guessed at the lack of resolve and courage of France and Britain. While France stood gaping and Britain remained pawing the ground, Churchill attempted to galvanise the world through collective action; “If the League of Nations were able to enforce its decree upon one of the most powerful countries in the world found to be an aggressor, then the authority of the League would be set upon so majestic a pedestal that it must henceforth be the accepted sovereign authority by which all the quarrels of the people can be determined and controlled. Thus we might upon this occasion reach by one single bound the realisation of our most cherished dreams.” No action was forthcoming and the political leaders and newspapers of the day played down the crisis. However Baldwin’s stock was falling and Churchill’s was climbing. The British had long been harangued by Churchill for their blindness to Hitler’s menace. The 1930’s make tragic reading. If but a tithe of Churchill’s advice and will had been effected the desolation of the Second World War would never have transpired. Efforts were made but they were too small to meet the challenge. Beginning in 1935 a new fighter based Air Force was being patiently constructed, and well known scientists dedicated to remilitarizing Britain like Henry Tizard and his rival, Churchill’s mentor Frederick Lindemann, were given ample access in corridors of power. Though the armed forces were being renewed, it was a case of far too little too late. The great German advantage in air and land power could not be overcome in a few short years by a determined but still rather small British remilitarization campaign. The vacillation and blind insipidity of Britain, France and America during the 1930’s even now defies comprehension. At that time nearly every foreign correspondent was aware of the derision in which the dictators held the democracies and their determination to wage war while the waging was good. Masses of paper appeal to this theme. In 1937 Herr von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador to London had a long talk with Churchill telling him openly that Germany must have a free hand in Eastern Europe. When Churchill stated that Britain would not allow this the German replied, “In that case war is inevitable. There is no way out. The Fuhrer is resolved. Nothing will stop him and nothing will stop us.” It is difficult to find another period in history when war was so unconcealed and obvious.

California Art Attorney, Maritime Shipwreck Lawyer And International Antiquities Attorney Analyzes Ownership Of Shipwrecks, Stolen Art And Antiquities

July 12th, 2009 at 11:38am Under Admiralty Law

You may have thought that when it comes to lost or stolen art, sunken treasure discovered on shipwrecks and buried treasure and antiquities that all you have to do is find it, or buy it in good faith and you can keep it, but international, maritime and competing state laws have something to say about it. The right California Art, Maritime Shipwreck Treasure and Antiquities Lawyer, however, can sort out the competing legal issues.

If you have a legal issue involving art, antiquities or have a claim to a maritime shipwreck, sunken or buried treasure under California, martitme, or international law, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure

Recently, a number of prized shipwrecks have been found, one as recently as February 2009 when a U.S. salvage company, Odyssey Marine Exploration found a prized British warship believed to be the HMS Victory, lost in 1744, which just may hold four tons of gold. The HMS Victory discovery may solve one of the most intriguing naval mysteries in history. Why did this ship with one of the most famous admirals of his time, disappear with a crew of 1,100 men with one of the largest shipments of gold and silver, including four tons of gold coins, and why has it eluded treasure hunters for so long?

Believed sunk near the Channel Islands by a fierce storm that separated the Victory from other ships that broke through a French blockade at Lisbon and were returning home, the Victory (a later version which would be commanded by Admiral Nelson) had the sons of some of Britain’s most influential families on board when it sunk with perhaps the largest collection of bronze cannon as well.

In a less important find of another English shipwreck, Odyssey negotiated a deal whereby it received 80 percent of the first $50 million salvaged, and then a sliding scale up to $500 million, after which the profits were split 50-50. Since that time, however, the British government adopted a set of UNESCO guidelines that will complicate any hope of a similar arrangement.

Two years earlier, the same company, Odyssey, located the mystery ship, the Black Swan” believed to be a Spanish galleon, the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas, that sank off the coast of Portugal, with seventeen tons of gold and silver coins.

The Spanish government has sued Odyssey in a Florida federal court on the basis that it never abandoned the shipwreck. One could say, they simply lost it for a few hundred years. The British government is believed to be negotiating with Odyssey about a collaboration to salvage the warship.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure Law

What’s important in sunken treasure cases is where the treasure is found, whether the ship was owned by a government or a private entity, and whether there has been any dishonest conduct by the treasure hunters.

Most countries and their maritime lawyers claim anything to be within 12 nautical miles from their coast as their territorial waters. Additionally, if the ship was owned by the state or government, Law of the Sea Conventions come into play, which again allow the state or foreign country to determine what compensation the treasure hunter is entitled to. Finally, if the treasure hunter or salvage company has been guilty of any fraud or dishonest conduct, they can be deprived of any or all of any payment due them. Entering a foreign state’s territorial waters to look for a sunken ship counts as such misconduct.

International Maritime Law and The Law of the Sea

Under international maritime law and the law of the sea, if an owner abandons a vessel, it can be claimed by the finder. When a vessel has not been abandoned, it can still be salvaged by the finder and is usually compensated by the sovereign state claiming ownership. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 encourages cooperation between sovereign governments and states and private entities.

The rule of “finders, keepers” applies only where the previous owner of a ship is found to have abandoned its property. Under various state laws, treaties and conventions, however, the positions taken by most governments, including the U.S., is that the state only abandons its sovereignty over, and title to, sunken U.S. warships by affirmative act. Mere passage of time or lack of positive assertions of right are insufficient to establish such abandonment. Thus, France’s claim with respect to the Griffin (or Griffon) that it never abandoned its interests in the ship.

Sorting out these competing claims can take awhile. In 2001, the Great Lakes Exploration LLC found a 17th Century ship, the Griffin, in northern Lake Michigan, near Wisconsin. One might think that Michigan or Wisconsin would have good claim to the ship. But just in January 2009, France filed papers with the court hearing the case that claims the ship expedition was undertaken on behalf of the French Crown and was not a private enterprise.

The Richest Shipwreck Ever Found

And then, just when you thought the scale of these discoveries could not be topped, they have been, at least monetarily, with the discovery of a British merchant ship, sunk by a Nazi submarine, that was transporting just goods from a European port, to the U.S. with repayment to the U.S. Treasury for the Lend-Lease Program that gave support to the Allied war effort. And what was this ship, code named the Blue Baron carrying? Just the world’s richest shipwreck cargo ever. The ship is thought to have been carrying a $3.7 billion cargo of gold, platinum and diamonds.

Believed to have been found about 40 miles off the coast of Guyana by Sub Sea Research, a U.S.-based marine research and recovery firm, the shipwreck will be the richest find ever. It was reportedly carrying at least ten tons of gold bullion, 70 tons of platinum, one and a half tons of industrial diamonds and 16 million carats of gem quality diamonds.

So far, no counter claims have been filed in the federal admiralty court case relating to the find, but it is likely that a number of countries may make claims to possessions on board that originated in those countries, including Russia which, like Britain, shipped large quantities of precious goods to the U.S. in payment for the war effort by the U.S. The question for historians who may have some influence in this case, is whether the Soviet Union paid subsequently for the Lend-Lease war effort after the ship was sunk.

Stolen Art and Antiquities Law

The law with respect to stolen art as opposed to lost shipwrecks is quite different, but no less complicated. Some countries view the movement of stolen works of art as the smuggling out of its country of a “national treasure,” even if it was previously, privately owned. Other countries view the contents of tombs and other relics to be the property of the state and their taking as “theft.” Another view of situations in which a work of art is previously owned by one person and then appears in the collection of another, is viewed as a further variation of theft. In this last variation, most legal systems provide protection to the bona fide purchaser, unless the property is stolen.

Unfortunately, the laundering of stolen works of art is facilitated by the lack of consistency of state laws and international law, statutes of limitations, the bona fide purchaser defense and the burden of proof on the person claiming that the art work was stolen.

Under a common law rule in Anglo-American law, a person cannot give what he or she does not have. Thus, a thief cannot convey good title to a stolen work of art, even where there have been several subsequent purchases by bona fide and unsuspecting persons acting in good faith. However, the vast majority of western countries with civil law systems accord protection to the purchaser in good faith of stolen art. While there are international treaties and conventions which are gaining supporters, for the most part, it has been said that international law on the illegal sale of art works and cultural treasures is not retroactive.

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have an issue involving stolen art or any art issue, maritime shipwreck sunken treasure, or with regard to international or cultural antiquity treasures.

The FBI now maintains a National Stolen Art File (NSAF) which is a computerized index of stolen art and cultural property reported to the FBI by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and the world. The primary goal of the NSAF is to serve as a tool to assist investigators in art and cultural artifact theft cases and to function as an analytical database providing law enforcement officials with information concerning art theft.

It has been reported that the trade in illegal art and antiquities in the U.S. is exceeded only by the trade of guns and drugs. It is believed that most of the stolen art in the world (over 100,000 objects since the 1980s) comes to London or to the U.S. with much of it bought secretly by persons for their private collections, for a fraction of their market value.

If you need legal assistance in connection with any type of art, treasure or antiquity, look to our California art, antiquity, maritime and international law firm for representation in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Cruise Ship Vacations are Meant to be Fun and Enjoyable

July 12th, 2009 at 05:39am Under Admiralty Law

During this busy time of the year many people are excited and taking advantage of the enjoyment and adventure to be had on cruise ships or cruise line. Many families are enjoying their vacations with loved ones on a Princess cruise liner, couples are having the time of their lives on their romantic honeymoon cruise, and many students will be celebrating graduation and senior trips by boarding a cruise liner with their fellow classmates.

When the number increases in individuals who are enjoying being able to get away and go on a cruise, this unfortunately means that cruise ship accidents, injuries suffered by tour boat passengers, and wrongful death cases will go up in number as well.

It is crucial that you contact expert cruise ship accident attorneys who are familiar with Princess cruise liner accidents and injuries that are suffered in these types of accidents. You will want the assurance in knowing the cruise ship injury claim lawyers you retain have the needed experience of being familiar with maritime or admiralty laws on injuries or infectious disease that have happened out at sea in international waters that generally apply to cruise ship injury cases. If a cruise ship liner accident has occurred in which you have suffered injury or have become ill with an infectious disease while in the United States coastal waters, or an area of California territorial waters, there are several other rules that might apply.

Knowledge, professionalism, and the utmost in experience are a must in these types of tragic accidents, so that you and your family members can be at rest with the peace of mind that comes with knowing your claims will be handled efficiently and properly and that the negligent parties, if any were involved, will pay for their negligence.

When Do You Need a Florida Boating Accident Lawyer?

July 11th, 2009 at 11:39pm Under Admiralty Law

When do you need one? A Florida boating accident lawyer typically handles cases arising from the use or misuse of pleasure boats, as well as the pursuit of water activities such jets skiing, parasailing, water skiing, diving, and fishing. To involve a lawyer at all would mean reporting an accident that included death, disappearance, personal injury, or property damage, any or all of which occurred on the water. Leaving the scene of an accident or driving under the influence of alcohol is as serious on the water as it is on land. Meanwhile, for Florida boating accident lawyers to do their job, they must adhere to admiralty and maritime laws, which are the regulations that govern the sea. From small craft and sail boats to cruise ships and tankers, admiralty law is an important subset of the legal profession, especially in Florida.

For lesser infractions, authorities like the local sheriff, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Coast Guard manage to keep the burgeoning population of recreational water craft under control. As of 2006, over 1 million boats were registered in Florida and an estimated 350,000 unregistered boats were on Floridian waters. Issues that arise for boat usage include improper registration, reckless driving, speeding in no wake areas, disrupting the sea grass, and injuring manatees, which are protected by federal and state law. In fact, Florida laws are very protective about its natural resources and native wildlife. Yet the ever-increasing boat population requires constant vigilance.

When boating accident charges are serious and a lawyer is needed, maritime law is not for the amateur or general legal practitioner. Some rules of the water vary from those on land. For example, seamen who work on boats are not covered by Workman’s Comp in the event of an accident. Yet a Florida boating accident lawyer would know that traditionally, the same seaman has other protective statutes in place that would protect him.

For more information about Florida boating accident lawyers, visit http://www.principledlawyer.com

Determining When the Jones Act Applies

July 11th, 2009 at 05:39pm Under Admiralty Law

The Jones Act is a vital piece of maritime law that incorporates nearly every maritime job in the United States. Of course, before running off to find the world’s best maritime injury lawyer, one should be sure that their injury at sea qualifies under the Jones Act.
Injury at sea can be incredibly dangerous and those who put their lives in harm’s way are likely to experience some sort of injury during a lifetime of service. Injuries covered under the Jones Act range from large to small, and of course, there are special addendums to cover accidental death at sea.
Under specific admiralty law, maritime injuries require covered under this special clause are to be deemed accidental in the case of a seaman of servitude. The term servitude covers a wide range of sea going occupations, including but not limited to merchant sea-persons, commercial fishing, shrimp boats, water taxi and ferry personnel, as well as divers, drivers, and all other underwater personnel. In the event that a sea-person of servitude does not receive the appropriate compensation for an injury obtained at sea, the natural course of action is to retain an appropriate maritime injury lawyer to determine the eligible status of the injury and its related circumstances.
The law is not as simple as most believe. It isn’t always a simple correlation between injury and lawsuit. Sometimes a person can get hurt, fault can be determined, and a maritime attorney can file the appropriate lawsuit. Other cases are much more complicated and there are circumstances where a maritime attorney can do nothing on behalf of the injured party. This is why it is vital that the appropriate maritime injury lawyer is sought out and consulted with.
In some cases, the Jones Act will apply to a sailing instructor and even a camp counselor at a sailing camp. Depending on various factors involved, sometimes the Jones Act doesn’t apply. While the maritime injury lawyers are quite busy keeping up with changes to existing law, lay people should refrain from making assumptions about what applies to them and what doesn’t. Sometimes, it is all simply a matter of circumstance. Without a consultation, it is nearly impossible to determine an injured party’s eligibility for protection under the Jones Act.
Admiralty law was designed to protect the merchants and the sea-persons who have continuously placed their lives at risk in servitude to their country’s defense. While this was originally an English inclusion (as it applies to the United States) admiralty law has grown to cover various aspect of a life at sea. The protection under the laws which were granted are in place to not only compliment existing laws regarding workplace safety and liability, but also to intercede and assist judgments and final rulings in cases that are in direct conflict with maritime law.
After all many maritime laws are not necessarily on equal footing with laws of the land. When these laws were originally concocted for the appropriate protections pertaining to seamen, many lived without setting foot on dry land for years on end, with no desire to ever become a land dweller.
While times have changed since the original English inception of maritime law, the laws haven’t always adhered to modern day interpretations of maritime life. This means that a maritime attorney is the only viable resource for determining the effects of the law pertaining to an injury at sea.
A maritime injury lawyer may be able to procure large settlements and award judgments for those who have sustained an injury at sea, while at the same time, depending on the language of the law and the circumstances surrounding the injury itself, a maritime injury lawyer may not be able to procure even the most nominal medical expense for the injured party.
Life at sea, whether it is an entire life, a whole life, or a season of a life, is vastly different from life on land. While there are numerous unmatchable beauties and thrills that coincide with a life at sea, there are also innumerable dangers. It can not be assumed that just because one has gone to sea regularly for the past thirty years without incident that their luck will hold out.
Even the best of vigilance, precaution, maintenance, and care can not always prevent the unforeseen and the unpredictability of the weather. Life at sea is for a very select few, and those select few understand the implications of entering life among the waves. After all, if they didn’t, they would simply stay ashore.

What Happens After an Injury at Sea?

July 11th, 2009 at 11:39am Under Admiralty Law

Despite the extensive safety classes offered for both commercial and pleasure sea going individuals, an injury at sea can happen at any time, and can be very terrifying. After all, the resources to remove someone from a vessel who is seriously injured are really minimal in comparison to receiving assistance on land. After the helicopters and rescue teams create a big fuss and get an injured victim safely to an on shore medical facility, what happens next?
Medical bills for an injury at sea tend to be much higher than those for injuries sustained on land. In most cases, some sort of rescue effort was made either via boat or air to get the injured party to the appropriate medical facility. Just like a ride in the ambulance comes at a cost, so does a chopper evacuation or a boat rescue. Coupled with the extensive damage that can occur during a rescue, even a broken leg or arm can rack up serious medical bills in a heart beat. In some cases, there is nothing the injured party can do.
In cases involving liability or work related injuries, the only way to financially protect what has taken a lifetime to build is to call a maritime injury lawyer. A maritime injury attorney can go over the case, ask the appropriate questions, and determine whether or not the injury falls under provision made in the Jones Act.
The Jones Act is a valuable doctrine that determines liability and financial obligation relating to injury at sea regardless of whether the injury was sustained in the pursuit of commerce, protection of the country, or personal pleasure. The Jones Act is used to determine the rights of an injured victim and how much and if they are entitled to compensation and damages stemming from the accident.
Obviously, a maritime injury attorney can do nothing if the accident was the fault of the injured party. There was a story in a prominent sailing magazine a few years back that told the story of a man who ran himself over with his own dinghy. He had apparently stood up while underway and the dinghy ran into a sandbar, lurching and sending the gentleman several feet in front of the dinghy.
The auxiliary engine did not have a safety cut off switch attached to his wrist, and of course with his weight out of the boat, it continued to progress and ran him over, cutting his face. Accidents such as these happen more regularly than could ever be printed.
A maritime injury attorney could do nothing in this situation, unless there was an emergency cut off switch that failed, or there was some other sort of safety mechanism that did not respond during the emergency. Nevertheless, this particular gentleman was still encouraged to contact a maritime injury lawyer just to be sure that his case was not tri-able.
When accidents occur involving safety equipment, the first call after alerting family members to the situation, should be to a maritime injury attorney. A thorough assessment by a maritime injury lawyer can often determine whether damages to cover the medical costs as well damages to cover any permanent injury are attainable.
For many families, this is the only viable means of paying the extraordinary costs associated with such an accident as well as maintaining the lifestyle achieved before the accident. A higher percentage of injuries at sea lead to life long effects than injuries sustained on land. Research has not yet proven exactly why, but there are many theories to support the statistics.
When an accident is clearly the fault of another seagoing individual, whether this entails commercial accidents or pleasure boating accidents, a maritime injury lawyer becomes a vital part of the picture, just as the physicians, surgeons, and therapists. A maritime injury lawyer can oversee that the victim’s rights under the Admiralty Law and the Jones Act are being upheld. In the event that any party involved in the accident are in violation of Admiralty Law or the Jones Act, a maritime injury attorney can then step up and start filing on behalf of the injured victim.
All too often people who have sustained an injury at sea and are entitled to compensation under the Jones Act or Admiralty Law do not receive fair treatment. This is due in part to the propensity for calling the wrong lawyer. If an injured party contact the same lawyer they used to fight their speeding ticket or to draw up their legal papers, they are not likely to receive the type of representation they need. Maritime injury attorneys are devoted to a specialty, and thus have extensively studied the Jones Act and Admiralty Law.