The Winston Churchill paradox

patsman07

I'm currently reading Volume One of Churchill's WW2 memoirs. Its an excellent read. It contains many lengthy quotes of the authors speeches during the 1930s. I cannot but be bowled over by the incredible accuracy of Churchill's dire warnings during this period. They are prophetic.
Within some speeches Churchill expresses deep concern for the independence of the Low countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland) and he displays his disgust at the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, which he describes as un-acceptable in the modern age. These are obviously anti-imperialist notions.
However in the same text he expresses his displeasure at the government's pro-Indian independence stance and I know from other sources that Churchill was no friend of Irish independence.

Is this paradox down to a blinding nationalism??

Thomas_I

patsman07 wrote: »

I'm currently reading Volume One of Churchill's WW2 memoirs. Its an excellent read. It contains many lengthy quotes of the authors speeches during the 1930s. I cannot but be bowled over by the incredible accuracy of Churchill's dire warnings during this period. They are prophetic.
Within some speeches Churchill expresses deep concern for the independence of the Low countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland) and he displays his disgust at the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, which he describes as un-acceptable in the modern age. These are obviously anti-imperialist notions.
However in the same text he expresses his displeasure at the government's pro-Indian independence stance and I know from other sources that Churchill was no friend of Irish independence.

Is this paradox down to a blinding nationalism??

It is not blinding nationalism, it has more to do with different views on different geo-political matters. WSC was the defender of the BE in he first place, he was also interested to keep it together for the purpose of Britains strenght on the world stage. He foresaw the dangerous development on the European continent not only by inspiration but by the help of others who provided him with - also secret - informations and figures about the re-armament of Germany. Besides his political talent, he was also a Historian, especially on military History and therefore his concerns about the Low Countries was in the first place about military considerations. As to say to secure the safety of Britain against an German invasion.

It is no paradox to me in his views and actions, it is quite reasonable to me. The difference is just, that considering these from the Irish point of view, it looks different, of course. But WSC was also opposing the policy of the British governments in the 1930s by his stance against Indias demand for independence. The then British governments were inclined to grant India dominion status.

nuac

Yes WSC wrote well.

remember he said after WW2 that history would be kind to him, as he intended to write it.

Like all politicians he will praise his own foresight.

Still an interesting man, involved in Irish affairs for many decades.

Have many of his books, and often dip into them

Thomas_I

nuac wrote: »

Yes WSC wrote well.

remember he said after WW2 that history would be kind to him, as he intended to write it.

Like all politicians he will praise his own foresight.

Still an interesting man, involved in Irish affairs for many decades.

Have many of his books, and often dip into them

That´s true but the events from 1939 to 1945 proved him right and that´s not a thing which many politicians can say about themselves.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s true but the events from 1939 to 1945 proved him right and that´s not a thing which many politicians can say about themselves.

he was the right man to do the job that was needed at that moment in time,[a war monger and leader] after the war he himself could not understand why the voting british public turned their back on him in politics,

nuac

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s true but the events from 1939 to 1945 proved him right and that´s not a thing which many politicians can say about themselves.

Yes that is true. He rallied the British when some of them i.e. Halifax might have preferred an accoommodation with Hitler.

Reading between the lines of the Alanbrooke Diaries he could be difficult to work with or for, but he did lead them to victory

nuac

getz wrote: »

he was the right man to do the job that was needed at that moment in time,[a war monger and leader] after the war he himself could not understand why the voting british public turned their back on him in politics,

I suggest "warmonger" is a bit strong. He believed stongly in Britain and it's empire. I don't think he initiated any wars ( apart from the pressure on the Free State to shell the Four Courts this kicking off our Civil War )

getz

winston churchill 1937, quote; i do not agree that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may of lain there for a very long time,i do not admit that right,i do not admit for instance,that a great wrong has been done to the red indians of america or the black people of australia,i do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race ,a higher-grade race,a more worldly wise race to put it that way,has come in and taken their place.

nuac

getz wrote: »

winston churchill 1937, quote; i do not agree that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may of lain there for a very long time,i do not admit that right,i do not admit for instance,that a great wrong has been done to the red indians of america or the black people of australia,i do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race ,a higher-grade race,a more worldly wise race to put it that way,has come in and taken their place.

Certainly those are racist remarks, but the US actions against the Native Americans and the Australian colonists actions against the Aboriginals were well before Churchill's time. Those remarks do not constitute imho warmongering

donaghs

Perhaps it's not really a paradox in the sense that in the examples listed Churchill always felt he was acting in the interests of Britain and its Empire. Even if his actions don't always seem right to us in hindsight.

Some hypocrisy in his attacks on other empires, and defence of the British Empire

patsman07

donaghs wrote: »

Perhaps it's not really a paradox in the sense that in the examples listed Churchill always felt he was acting in the interests of Britain and its Empire. Even if his actions don't always seem right to us in hindsight.

Some hypocrisy in his attacks on other empires, and defence of the British Empire

Thats the best explanation imo. But as I said its interesting that his speeches espouse the righteousness of the independence of the little nations of Belgium, Holland etc.

On his racism, he said at one stage in the House of Commons whilst making a speech about an uprising in Iraq (I think) that "I cannot understand the squemishness about using poison gas on uncivilised tribes." He also sent a note to Wilson after WW2 saying that the only be he was concerned about were the British people and "those of the right colour in the colonies."

Reekwind

donaghs wrote: »

Some hypocrisy in his attacks on other empires, and defence of the British Empire

Well yes but the entire Empire was built on hypocrisy, from the 'civilising mission' up

It's often been said that Hitler did nothing that Europeans hadn't already been practising for decades in their empires; the Nazi novelty being to import these techniques and use them against 'civilised' Europeans. Obviously that's a facile exaggeration but there remains a grain of truth in it. Double standards were very much applied: the question was not so much violence as to who it was applied

For example, the politicians who set Ireland alight in a programme of repression (including the Black and Tans) were the same who were publicly horrified by the German sack of Louvain in 1914. There were different rules for cracking down on one's subjects

Ultimately of course this sort of double-think was unsustainable but as late as the 1950s the British were insisting that the Atlantic Charter, supposedly the expression of the Allied post-war vision, did not apply to colonial subjects. For Churchill self-determination was for Europeans only

Zebra3

British policy was always about divide and conquer on mainland Europe, to ensure that no one power dominated, and could threathen Britain and all the land it occupied.

Churchill was a rabid racist and only gave a damn about Germany becoming a rival to Britain.

There was no paradox.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

British policy was always about divide and conquer on mainland Europe, to ensure that no one power dominated, and could threathen Britain and all the land it occupied.

Churchill was a rabid racist and only gave a damn about Germany becoming a rival to Britain.

There was no paradox.

France was always a rival to Britain and Churchill had no problem with the French. In fact, Churchill himself said of Hitler

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/books-about/we-read-them-so-you-dont-have-to/the-fine-art-of-selective-quoting

To feel deep concern about the armed power of Germany is in no way derogatory to Germany. On the contrary, it is a tribute to the wonderful and terrible strength which Germany exerted in the Great War, when almost single-handed she fought nearly all the world and nearly beat them. Naturally, when a people who have shown such magnificent military qualities are arming night and day, its neighbours, who bear the scars of previous conflicts, must be anxious and ought to be vigilant. One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. I have on more than one occasion made my appeal in public that the Führer of Germany should now become the Hitler of peace.

And another quote http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/war-correspondent/london-to-ladysmith-via-pretoria

I often wish modern writers who say Churchill was a racist would read his conversation with his Boer captors in London to Ladysmith. This was--remember--1899, when every Englishman alive supposedly believed in the utter supremacy of the white race, English branch.

"Is it right," the guard asked Churchill, "that a dirty Kaffir [native] should walk on the pavement [sidewalk] without a pass? That's what they do in your British Colonies. Brother! Equal! Ugh! Free! Not a bit. We know how to treat Kaffirs....They were put here by the God Almighty to work for us. We'll stand no damned nonsense from them. We'll keep them in their proper places."

After recording his guard's opinions Churchill states his own: "What is the true and original root of Dutch aversion to British rule? It is the abiding fear and hatred of the movement that seeks to place the native on a level with the white man. British government is associated in the Boer farmer's mind with violent social revolution...the Kaffir is to be declared the brother of the European, to be constituted his legal equal, to be armed with political rights...nor is a tigress robbed of her cubs more furious than is the Boer at this prospect." After the statements of his captor, Churchill concludes, "[he and I had] no more agreement...Probing at random I had touched a very sensitive nerve."

Smiles35

patsman07 wrote: »

Within some speeches Churchill expresses deep concern for the independence of the Low countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland) and he displays his disgust at the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, which he describes as un-acceptable in the modern age. These are obviously anti-imperialist notions.
However in the same text he expresses his displeasure at the government's pro-Indian independence stance and I know from other sources that Churchill was no friend of Irish independence.

Is this paradox down to a blinding nationalism??

I would read it as, he's expressing what could happen in the future in Europe. Then listing off a major asset that could be needed.

Then a question arises. Could an English politician at that time have expressed a more rounded view?

Thomas_I

Zebra3 wrote: »

British policy was always about divide and conquer on mainland Europe, to ensure that no one power dominated, and could threathen Britain and all the land it occupied.

Churchill was a rabid racist and only gave a damn about Germany becoming a rival to Britain.

There was no paradox.

The term "divide and conquer" is more accurate re the British colonies which were mostly outside Europe. But I agree that the British policy to ensure that no one power dominated Europe was the key to prevent Britain and the British Empire from being threatened. Germany in this regard, has been such a serious threat to British interests for twice in the two world wars.

Churchill was, as many other people of his generation in some ways brought up in an racistical era when it was quite normal to them to think in such terms. But he wasn´t that kind of an "rabid racist" as you´re telling here. This subject needs to be considered a bit more differently.

SafeSurfer

donaghs wrote: »

Perhaps it's not really a paradox in the sense that in the examples listed Churchill always felt he was acting in the interests of Britain and its Empire. Even if his actions don't always seem right to us in hindsight.

Some hypocrisy in his attacks on other empires, and defence of the British Empire

History has been kind to Churchill. However it could equally be argued that he oversaw the destruction of his beloved empire. If an accommodation had been reached with Nazi Germany, the British empire could have continued and prospered while the Germans and Russians fought a war of extermination in the east.
The war was a phyric victory for Britain as it finished the war emaciated and no longer a credible super power. It could have been very different if Churchill had acted in the best interests of the empire as a whole. The war resulted in the collapse of the great European powers, with the USSR and USA as the only true superpowers.

Thomas_I

SafeSurfer wrote: »

History has been kind to Churchill. However it could equally be argued that he oversaw the destruction of his beloved empire. If an accommodation had been reached with Nazi Germany, the British empire could have continued and prospered while the Germans and Russians fought a war of extermination in the east.
The war was a phyric victory for Britain as it finished the war emaciated and no longer a credible super power. It could have been very different if Churchill had acted in the best interests of the empire as a whole. The war resulted in the collapse of the great European powers, with the USSR and USA as the only true superpowers.

What was is Lord Nelson said about Napoleon? "... you can never have peace with Napoleon because he doesn´t mean peace ..." Replace that with the name "Hitler" and that´s it.

If the Germans had won the second world war and Britain had given in in 1940, there had been no trustful guarantee that the BE had survived. Britain had been at least a from Germany economically dependent country and so it´s Empire. The Germans surely had had a big appetite to get most from that "cake" (if not all of it).