Comments on: England awake!

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:39:40 +0000

Thanks for the info about the P-B memorial; I found an article about it here:

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/echofeatures/memories/4100526.How_flying_machines_began_life_in_Essex_village/

That Leese called Locker-Lampson that is interesting, but doesn’t really tell us much: Leese was so rabidly anti-Semitic that he can’t have met many people who lived down to his low standards.

I dispute that the Air League was ‘very significant’ — it was in constant danger of being supplanted by other groups, and its secretary occasionally had to write in to newspapers to remind the editor that it still existed. The Air Defence Cadet Corps was the one undeniable achievement of the pre-war Air League, but I don’t think it’s accurate to call it the Air League youth wing — it was and I think always was intended to be a separate organisation, albeit one which was administered by the Air League. The Skybird League fits the bill better, which I’ve discussed elsewhere.

By: Keith Thompson

Keith Thompson — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:01:15 +0000

Arnold Leese, pre-war leader of the Imperial Fascist League, referred to Locker-Lampson as a dedication in one of his books as “Jew Lover in Chief”
Regarding Noel Pemberton-Billing. Only a few days ago (20th February 2009) I attended a commemoration service at South Fambridge, Essex, which was held to unveil a granite plinth marking the site of Britain’s first aerodrome – which was founded, owned and operated by Noel Pemberton-Billing. he also founded the Supermarine factory at Southampton which later produced the Spitfire.
The Air League of the British Empire was very significant and its youth wing was later taken over by the government to become the Air training Corps. This was and still is a pre-service organisation.

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:18 +0000

Thanks, Richard! That’s very interesting. It supports the idea that Locker-Lampson and the Sentinels were more anti-Bolshevist than pro-fascist (and it was easy enough to think the two were identical in the 1920s). And also interesting that ‘Hands Off Britain’ was Locker-Lampson’s thing well before the Air Defence League came along. Presumably he felt it was a winning slogan.

Coincidentally, I came across an article about Locker-Lampson today, from June 1938. Not only was he extremely harsh about both Fascism and Nazism (the latter were `half-wits and degenerates’, but he also believed that whoever the Soviet Union allied with in the next war would win it (partly because of its huge air force). So he’d come some way from his anti-Bolshevism too.

By: Richard Barnes

Richard Barnes — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:58:58 +0000

I’m a classical musician and recently took out a volume from the Cambridge University Library, containing music I needed to consult. Once home I found it included the song “On Guard” – “Written and Composed specially for the Patriotic Campaign associated with Commander Locker Lampson.” – words by Harold Begbie, music by WH Squire and sung (the copy says) by Dame Clara Butt. It is dated 1927, and on the back cover are a few words about the “Sentinels of Empire”:-
This non-partisan Association has recently been launched by commander Locker Lampson to coimbat communism throughtout the Empire and to promote the immediate policy of “Hands off Britain.” [More along these lines, then] the motto of the movement is “Fear God, Fear Nought” – which unsurprisingly is the catchphrase of the chorus of the song. The “Hands off Britain” campaign was already at St Stephen’s House, Westminster. Intrigued by all this I’ve just googled “Sentinels of Empire” and come up with your site. Thought you might be interested……

By: CK

CK — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:41:24 +0000

Judging from the nose and the mouth I reckon it’s him. Also note that it looks like they’ve touched up the furrows on the brow. They look like Nordic fjords.

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:35:28 +0000

Oh, as to the identity of the Angry Old Man: the obvious suggestion (so obvious I didn't think of it while writing the post) is that it's Locker-Lampson himself. He doesn't seem to have been a shy, retiring type, so I can see him plastering his picture all over the place. I can't find a contemporary photo -- the best I could do was this, presumably taken during the war (so about 15-20 years earlier). He was born in 1880 so would have been about 54 when the pamphlet was issued. What do you think? I think it could be well be him. They've both got a big mouth on them, but Locker-Lampson has a prominent cleft chin, whereas Angry Old Man doesn't seem to (though it could be masked by shadows).

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:29:49 +0000

Well, he acted as WSC’s right hand with the secret services, especially in the immediate post-WW1 period of intervention in Russia, dirty tricks in Ireland, and strike breaking in the UK..

More broadly, Winston was a terrible geek – he could never resist technology in any form. Roll him 60 to 80 years forward and he would probably have been constantly in trouble for spreading scandal about his rivals on the Chartwell blog.

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:08:29 +0000

I think Chris has got it pegged. I don’t know that Churchill had any special insight into the value of aviation: it’s more that he liked its offensive nature. He certainly wasn’t universally admired by the fraternity of flight: P. R. C. Groves was very critical of Churchill’s tenure as Air Minister: he accepted the Trenchard memorandum and decided that civil aviation must ‘fly by itself’, both disastrous decisions by Groves’ lights. And there remained the suspicion that he’d been given the dual jobs of War and Air in order to preside over the dismantling of the latter.

When I started working on this topic, I thought Churchill would feature more prominently in my thesis than he has so far. Which I would have been happy about, as I’ve long had an interest in him. But he just isn’t all that important to my story: he didn’t write books about airpower (or many articles), he didn’t have any special expertise on the subject, he didn’t join the various aviation ginger groups (even the parliamentary one, as far as I know), his interest in the topic waxed and waned. The major exception is of course in the 1930s, with his speeches on German air rearmament, but even there he was just one (loud, granted!) voice among many. That may change when I get to look at some really pro-rearmament papers like the Daily Mail. But the Saturday Review was just as gung-ho and it didn’t pay particular attention to Churchill on the issue. Of course, part of the reason that he was in the wilderness was that few on his own side of politics trusted him …

Churchill is certainly important to the bigger picture of aviation in Britain, as Alex notes, but mainly for his actions while in government. While that’s only tangentially of relevance to me, surely there’s room for somebody to write a book on it! And yeah, maybe even a blog post, but enthusiasm, inspiration and/or serendipity has to strike first :)

PS I’d also like to know what was spooky about Sinclair!

By: Jakob

Jakob — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:00:21 +0000

Alex: In what way was Sinclair spooky? I know he was secretary of state for air, but beyond that, nothing.

On shipping and airpower: Did Churchill have anything to do with the decision to give the cavity magnetron to Bomber Command rather than Coastal Command first, thereby ensuring that sets could be shot down over the Reich rather than hunting U-Boote in the Atlantic? I seem to remember Len Deighton writing about this, but could never find any corroborating evidence.

Chris Williams:
The pattern being to charge at the enemy whilst looking good on a horse?

P.S. I love the design of the page with the Ostfriesland; pity about the clunky typography on the cover, and the pedestrian look of the inside.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:32:57 +0000

I always thought that the development of air control tactics pre-dated the Cairo conference. Could be wrong, though, and I’ve not got Omissi to hand.

OTOH, sez Terraine, WSC railed in both wars against what he saw as the excessive logistical requirements of air warfare, as opposed to those of tanks. Which he’d persuaded the RNAS to invent…

I think that a lot of Churchill’s airmindedness (including his attitude to shipping at the time that he controlled a navy but hardly any air force), as well as his attitude to anything he was put in charge of, can be better explained as the operations of a Hussar officer on the make. There are patterns. He might have wanted to send Bomber Command to Berlin, but he also wanted to send the RN into the Baltic. And he sent the Canadians to Dieppe.

Like the Wright brothers, Churchill is inherently unlikely: if you put him in a novel it would be panned as ludicrous.