August 9, 2013

Finest Hour 118, Spring 2003

Page 04

LUETJENS AND CHURCHILL

Thank you for covering the post-9/11 encounter of USS Winston S. Churchill with the German warship Luetjens in Finest Hour 112. I checked the story with the German Naval Attache in Washington, and thought you would like a copy of his reply.
PROFESSOR C. R. HARMON, SEATTLE UNIVERSITY

(To Prof. Harmon) The encounter at which the warship Luetjens rendered honors to the Churchill and displayed the handmade sign, “We Stand by You” was conceived by Luetjens’s commanding officer, Fregattenkapitan Michael Meding, and four members of his crew, including the executive officer, Korvettenkapitan Michael Hufnagel, who had the idea. In Washington in February 2002 they received a Capitol Flag, sponsored by Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota, and were welcomed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz and Secretary of the Navy England.

2025 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 42nd International Churchill Conference. Washington, DC | October 9-11, 2025

2025 International Churchill Conference

The Luetjens (named after Admiral Luetjens who sank with the Bismarck) rendered honors on 14 September 2001 in the West English Channel at 49 Degr. 50.3 Mins. N., 5 Degr. 31.2 Mins. W, about 20 nautical miles southwest of Plymouth. Luetjens is one of three ships that the German Navy acquired from the U.S. Navy: Luetjens and Moelders were commissioned in 1969 and Rommel in 1970. The latter was decommissioned in 2000, Moelders in 2002, and Luetjens will be the last to be decommissioned in 2003.
CAPT. LUTZ HELMRICH, GERMAN NAVY

WHAT WOULD HE DO?

I was intrigued by “Iraq: What Would Churchill Do?” (FH 116:7). Here is Chuchill’s revealing passage on Germany in 1935 (Chapter 8 of The Gathering Storm): “Even at this time a resolute decision upon the authority, which could easily have been obtained, of the League of Nations might have arrested the whole process. Germany either could have been brought to the bar at Geneva and invited to give a full explanation and allow inter-Allied missions of inquiry to examine the state of her armaments and military formations in breach of the Treaty; or, in the event of refusal, the Rhine bridgeheads could have been reoccupied until compliance with the Treaty had been secured, without there being any possibility of effective resistance or much likelihood of bloodshed. In this way the Second World War could have been prevented or at least delayed indefinitely.”

I think this tracks recent U.S. policy:

(1) Seeking authority of the United Nations supporting existing treaty commitments; (2) Inviting Iraq “to give a full explanation and allow inter-Allied missions of inquiry to examine the state of her armaments…in breach of the Treaty”; and (3) Recognizing that if Iraq does not comply, the goal becomes that Iraq be “reoccupied.” Other interpretations might be given, but I believe Churchill would have been even more resolute if Hitler had been on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
ANDREW]. GUILFORD,TRABUCO CANYON, CALIF.

Editor’s response: It’s a pretty good analogy. Of course the other side is also quoting Churchill: “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” Like the Bible, you can always find a passage to fit. In “Datelines” this issue, we quote Alistair Cooke: “…most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there’s usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the Thirties are echoing through 2003.”

CHURCHILLIAN INCONSISTENCY?

Next January marks the 125th anniversary of the publication of Progress and Poverty by Henry George, whose proposal to tax land values instead of income was part of the Liberal Party’s “People’s Budget” in 1909. George’s proposal had few more eloquent advocates than Churchill, but was blocked by the House of Lords, whose members were amongst the largest land owners. Their rejection led to the 1911 Parliament Act, which ended the peers’ veto on fiscal matters. (See “The People’s Rights: Opportunity Lost?,” Finest Hour 112. Ed.)

Yet as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924-29, Churchill failed to follow his earlier precepts. Why? Could he have lost faith in a policy he so passionately preached as a Liberal? Does any reader know? This is the first question I intend asking Sir Winston when I cross over the Styx and meet him on the other side. 
JAMES BELL, TILLICOULTRY, SCOTLAND