Winston Churchill

[fifty5]

In volume 1 of "The Second World War" Winston Churchill wrote:

"We must rergard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct not only of the British National and mainly Conservative Government, but of the Labour-Socialist and Liberal Parties, both in and out of office, during this fatal period. Delight in smooth-sounding policies, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interetsts of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr. Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr. Lloyd George, the erstwhile great war-time leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience."

Does anyone else find resonances in that that are relevant to today's situation in re Iraq etc.?

Eff

PS Thanks to Og for the set of Winnie's volumes.

 

[rgraham666]

Plus ca change and all that, fifty.

 

[SeaCat]

You see what happens when you give them books? They learn to read, then they start to think for themselves.

Cat

 

[cantdog]

Very long sentence from Winnie. It's a politician's sentence. He has spread the blame so thin over so many that no one is really tarred very black. Thus he acknowledges a period of British mistakes and leaves everyone nearly blameless all at once.

Well, that's what we hear every time, one way or another. By the time Winnie writes, the period was over, and Britain as a whole had shouldered the load and done the overtime to make right every mistake.

I don't believe it will look much different once we have extracted ourselves from the abyss into which our recent excesses have thrown us. Both parties are to blame, both collaborated to produce the mess, with only a few voices heard in opposition to any of it. The tar will be thin and easy to clean off.

Vis-a-vis Iraq in particular, which is by no means the only misstep we have made, both parties voted the unelected president war powers, both parties ran pro-war (Iraq war in particular) candidates.

I am hoping there will be as kind a place, historically, from which to write a similar backhanded absolution. I hope we will see that day, when, back on track at last, we can look back as Churchill is doing, acknowledge that we dug our own deadfall and fell into it, and spread the blame as harmlessly as he does.

But there may be other outcomes less fine. No cosmic rule is written in the sky that says we must endure, much less that we must prevail. Some mistakes are fatal.

 

[oggbashan]

Very long sentence from Winnie. It's a politician's sentence. He has spread the blame so thin over so many that no one is really tarred very black. Thus he acknowledges a period of British mistakes and leaves everyone nearly blameless all at once.

Well, that's what we hear every time, one way or another. By the time Winnie writes, the period was over, and Britain as a whole had shouldered the load and done the overtime to make right every mistake.

Churchill had been much more direct during the 1930s. He had been one of the few voices that warned about the growth of Fascism and its threat. At that time he was out of office and was dismissed as a warmonger. His speeches and writings made him unacceptable to his party.

Og

 

[elbiscayne]

Fucking politicians. A simple, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have screwed the pooch, and now that we have nukes we're going after her litter," would have been enough.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't understand. If I read him right, Chruchill's taking these people to task for preferring peace to armed intervention and not facing up to Hitler untill it was too late.

So you mean Churchill would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Does anyone else find resonances in that that are relevant to today's situation in re Iraq etc.?

"Lack of intellect" struck a chord.

 

[R. Richard]

Churchill had been much more direct during the 1930s. He had been one of the few voices that warned about the growth of Fascism and its threat. At that time he was out of office and was dismissed as a warmonger. His speeches and writings made him unacceptable to his party.

Og

However, during the war, Churchill was regarded by almost all thinking English as the man best qualified to lead his country during the time of troubles. Then, before the war was finally over, the same people threw him out of office.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't understand. If I read him right, Churchill's taking these people to task for preferring peace to armed intervention and not facing up to Hitler untill it was too late.

So you mean Churchill would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

---dr.M.

1. Yes. The French could have stopped Hitler's troops with a few bullets when he ordered the re-occupation of the Rhineland. The German General Staff expected Hitler to be stopped and were surprised that he wasn't. After that he could have been stopped before he occupied the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain's 'Peace in our time' was a cynical ploy to buy time. By the time of the invasion of Poland appeasement had gone so far that Hitler's Germany was unstoppable.

Probably not Iraq 2. He would have insisted that the 1st Iraq War was not ended until Saddam had been captured and would not have supporting starting even that war unless that had been an objective.

Og

 

[TheEarl]

Chamberlain gets a raw deal with the 'I have a piece of paper' thing. It was appeasement, but at that point it wasn't because England didn't want to war on Germany, but more because we were completely unprepared to war on Germany. The extra time gained by that allowed the construction of some kind of military force.

Ogg is right though - Hitler could've been shut down very early. However hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

Chamberlain gets a raw deal with the 'I have a piece of paper' thing. It was appeasement, but at that point it wasn't because England didn't want to war on Germany, but more because we were completely unprepared to war on Germany. The extra time gained by that allowed the construction of some kind of military force.

Ogg is right though - Hitler could've been shut down very early. However hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The Earl

I think there's some connection to Sept. 11th here really. In hindsight, yes, it's all obvious - but at the time, who could really believe that someone would do what he did? The World Jewish Council - hardly a disinterested party - dismissed some of its own members' warnings that Hitler was planning genocide. It just seemed too insane and unbelievable.

Shanglan

 

[fifty5]

Very long sentence from Winnie.

True, but read the whole context before jumping to conclusions.

It was in the context of the book that far that I found 'resonances' (and I reiterate that word - I don't even, necessarily, go as far as 'parallels').

dr_mab,

The resonances I found lay in: "Delight in smooth-sounding policies, refusal to face unpleasant facts ... obvious lack of intellectual vigour ... marked ignorance of ... sentiment apart from reality... fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt", not in "preferring peace to armed intervention."

You asked: "So you mean Churchill would have supported the invasion of Iraq?" I'm with Og on that (for what my guess is worth); I think WC would have finished the job the first time round.

TheEarl is also right: "hindsight is a wonderful thing."

Sure Winnie wrote the tomes after the event, but speaches recorded before it show that his foresight was also pretty good.

 

[cantdog]

I read his History of the English-Speaking Peoples. It's hard not to find Winnie inspiring. He was a forceful personality. But he does dwell rather lovingly on his own ancestors, and he did have an agenda with regard to America, wishing to link his country to it with history and make both American and British people feel closer to one another by reading it. His postwar speeches and politics were aimed at that, as well.

Politically, I believe he was wise to do that. He was wise to begin to advocate mending the breaches after around 1905 or so, and he was thinking soundly to urge Britain to stay close to us. He came here to help prevent a slide back into isolationist policies, after the war.

There is always a context with Churchill. But I have never read that particular book, just the History and a little book about painting as a pastime.