Thursday, August 6th, 2009
C. Read asked:
The prolific and exceptional historian and Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert has produced another interesting volume for the expanding library of Churchilliana. Gilbert’s look at the complex (and hardly submissive) relationship between Churchill and America, is edifying reading given the current threats faced by the once “Anglo” powers and Britain’s increasing Euro-centric orientation. Inter-state relations are necessarily complex, and Gilbert does a great job of detailing Churchill’s 60 year relationship with America, and outlining why, for world peace and prosperity, an Anglo-US partnership is vital. Churchill, for all his disputes with the Americans, certainly felt so.
The book runs about 400 pages and much of the material will be familiar to those acquainted with Mr. Gilbert’s copiously informative official biography. What is new is the refraction of events during Churchill’s long career, with America and the surprisingly profound fixation Churchill possessed about preserving US-British harmony. Chapter headings confirm Churchill’s appreciation of Anglo-American unity and hegemonic responsibility. “If we are together nothing is impossible”, “Our Band of Brothers”, “Never be separated from the Americans”, etc. Churchill, the dogmatic aristocrat of British Imperial splendor, understood that Britain alone was not a great force in world affairs, but that with American support; he could still influence world events.
Mr. Gilbert observes that Churchill possessed two important concepts regarding Anglo-US relations, both of which are still relevant today. First, isolationism, withdrawal, and insularity by a great power only leads to international chaos and irruption. Second, even given the grave differences in self-interest between the US and Britain, the commonality of outlook, institutions, laws, culture and even history (not to mention language), mandates a close cooperation between the two states, and that such cooperation benefits the international system and its attendant concerns including; peace, trade and stability. These two propositions, then and now, deeply offend socialists, Marxists, and race-baiters. Churchill had a very difficult time indeed throughout his career in convincing fellow Brits that an informal alliance with the US was in Britain’s best interest.
Churchill rightly commented that both world-wars could have been prevented if the US (especially) and Britain (less so) had pre-emptively intervened in world affairs. US disengagement from European politics insured that a Civil War would rage in Europe. A fact which was repeated during the 1990’s in the Balkans. As Churchill stated during a 1947 speech which looked back at the causes of World War II and forward to the Cold War, “War is not inevitable, but it would be inevitable if Britain and the United States were to follow the policy of appeasement and one-sided disarmament which brought about the last war.” (P.384)
Even Churchill’s tepid support of a “World Instrument” or a “United States of Europe”, was qualified by the avowal that only a US-British partnership could give such creations a chance of survival and a claim to legitimacy, and purposeful direction. For Churchill, International Institutions were to support the spread of peace, trade, law and rights. Only great powers acting in concert could promote such lofty ideals. (He would of course be amazed and disgusted by the perversion, waste and corruption of today’s U.N.O.).
Some other observations made by Churchill about the necessity and right of Anglo-American cooperation and engagement in international affairs.
“……the two great English speaking nations- the two great world creditor nations, the two great anti-communist nations…find a practical way out of this present ghastly world muddle (the Depression…..” (P.145)
“A tithe of the efforts now being made by America (Cold War), would have prevented the Second World War….” (P.399)
“He (Churchill) felt that he was called on as a result to serve the function of uniting the two great Anglo-Saxon civilizations in order to confer the benefit of freedom on the rest of the world.” (U.S. V.P. Wallace, diary 1943, P. 276).
As Churchill adjured the Americans post – 1945, higher ideals and moral suasion would need to inform US policy. Indeed and moral suasion would need to inform US policy. Indeed it can be stated that the mixture of US self-interest with “Wilsonian” liberalism has resulted in a foreign policy that is rather unique. The 1947 Marshall Plan, plan to save Europe; defending Korea and Vietnam; stopping genocide in the Balkans; intervening in 14 conflicts to save Muslim populations; the support of Israel; the funding of UN; and the billions of private dollars sent to overseas charities highlight what Churchill demanded in 1946m “(that) the United States must realize its power and its democracy for resolute guidance”. This is as true today as it was in 1946.
None of this is to suggest that Churchill wanted Britain subservient to US interests. But post-war Britain was unstable and broke. Only by repairing its economy, trade position, and instruments of power (the Navy, Diplomatic Corps, industry etc), could Britain hope to regain influence. American aid and support, then as now, was vital. American’s “arsenal of democracy” extracted over $100 billion in war payments from Britain, just paid off in 2005. Over the years Churchill volubly complaints about American desire to dismantle the British Empire. Disregards British interests; trust Soviet Russia (pre-1947); engage in economic protectionism; or impose unilateral (and usually utopian) solutions to complex issues in the geo-political sphere. Indeed in many ways Churchill never trusted, but usually admired the abstract ideal of America, and its leadership cadre. He did not however, countenance ignorant and misinformed anti-Americanism, “….Churchill deplored the anti-American attitude of (left-wing politicians)…” (P. 387). Marxist jingoism, while emotionally satisfying is not intelligent commentary.
Mr. Gilbert’s book has some valuable lessons. First, the world is a much better (I would say even a great place), thanks to Anglo-American historical development. Second, an Anglo-American partnership is the best guarantor of peace and prosperity. Third, relating to the Americans is best done from a position of strength and self confidence, not from supine weakness, and moral carping.
As usual Mr. Gilbert has fashioned an informative and interesting volume on his favorite topic. Its contents echo from the past to find relevance today.
Chad
The prolific and exceptional historian and Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert has produced another interesting volume for the expanding library of Churchilliana. Gilbert’s look at the complex (and hardly submissive) relationship between Churchill and America, is edifying reading given the current threats faced by the once “Anglo” powers and Britain’s increasing Euro-centric orientation. Inter-state relations are necessarily complex, and Gilbert does a great job of detailing Churchill’s 60 year relationship with America, and outlining why, for world peace and prosperity, an Anglo-US partnership is vital. Churchill, for all his disputes with the Americans, certainly felt so.
The book runs about 400 pages and much of the material will be familiar to those acquainted with Mr. Gilbert’s copiously informative official biography. What is new is the refraction of events during Churchill’s long career, with America and the surprisingly profound fixation Churchill possessed about preserving US-British harmony. Chapter headings confirm Churchill’s appreciation of Anglo-American unity and hegemonic responsibility. “If we are together nothing is impossible”, “Our Band of Brothers”, “Never be separated from the Americans”, etc. Churchill, the dogmatic aristocrat of British Imperial splendor, understood that Britain alone was not a great force in world affairs, but that with American support; he could still influence world events.
Mr. Gilbert observes that Churchill possessed two important concepts regarding Anglo-US relations, both of which are still relevant today. First, isolationism, withdrawal, and insularity by a great power only leads to international chaos and irruption. Second, even given the grave differences in self-interest between the US and Britain, the commonality of outlook, institutions, laws, culture and even history (not to mention language), mandates a close cooperation between the two states, and that such cooperation benefits the international system and its attendant concerns including; peace, trade and stability. These two propositions, then and now, deeply offend socialists, Marxists, and race-baiters. Churchill had a very difficult time indeed throughout his career in convincing fellow Brits that an informal alliance with the US was in Britain’s best interest.
Churchill rightly commented that both world-wars could have been prevented if the US (especially) and Britain (less so) had pre-emptively intervened in world affairs. US disengagement from European politics insured that a Civil War would rage in Europe. A fact which was repeated during the 1990’s in the Balkans. As Churchill stated during a 1947 speech which looked back at the causes of World War II and forward to the Cold War, “War is not inevitable, but it would be inevitable if Britain and the United States were to follow the policy of appeasement and one-sided disarmament which brought about the last war.” (P.384)
Even Churchill’s tepid support of a “World Instrument” or a “United States of Europe”, was qualified by the avowal that only a US-British partnership could give such creations a chance of survival and a claim to legitimacy, and purposeful direction. For Churchill, International Institutions were to support the spread of peace, trade, law and rights. Only great powers acting in concert could promote such lofty ideals. (He would of course be amazed and disgusted by the perversion, waste and corruption of today’s U.N.O.).
Some other observations made by Churchill about the necessity and right of Anglo-American cooperation and engagement in international affairs.
“……the two great English speaking nations- the two great world creditor nations, the two great anti-communist nations…find a practical way out of this present ghastly world muddle (the Depression…..” (P.145)
“A tithe of the efforts now being made by America (Cold War), would have prevented the Second World War….” (P.399)
“He (Churchill) felt that he was called on as a result to serve the function of uniting the two great Anglo-Saxon civilizations in order to confer the benefit of freedom on the rest of the world.” (U.S. V.P. Wallace, diary 1943, P. 276).
As Churchill adjured the Americans post – 1945, higher ideals and moral suasion would need to inform US policy. Indeed and moral suasion would need to inform US policy. Indeed it can be stated that the mixture of US self-interest with “Wilsonian” liberalism has resulted in a foreign policy that is rather unique. The 1947 Marshall Plan, plan to save Europe; defending Korea and Vietnam; stopping genocide in the Balkans; intervening in 14 conflicts to save Muslim populations; the support of Israel; the funding of UN; and the billions of private dollars sent to overseas charities highlight what Churchill demanded in 1946m “(that) the United States must realize its power and its democracy for resolute guidance”. This is as true today as it was in 1946.
None of this is to suggest that Churchill wanted Britain subservient to US interests. But post-war Britain was unstable and broke. Only by repairing its economy, trade position, and instruments of power (the Navy, Diplomatic Corps, industry etc), could Britain hope to regain influence. American aid and support, then as now, was vital. American’s “arsenal of democracy” extracted over $100 billion in war payments from Britain, just paid off in 2005. Over the years Churchill volubly complaints about American desire to dismantle the British Empire. Disregards British interests; trust Soviet Russia (pre-1947); engage in economic protectionism; or impose unilateral (and usually utopian) solutions to complex issues in the geo-political sphere. Indeed in many ways Churchill never trusted, but usually admired the abstract ideal of America, and its leadership cadre. He did not however, countenance ignorant and misinformed anti-Americanism, “….Churchill deplored the anti-American attitude of (left-wing politicians)…” (P. 387). Marxist jingoism, while emotionally satisfying is not intelligent commentary.
Mr. Gilbert’s book has some valuable lessons. First, the world is a much better (I would say even a great place), thanks to Anglo-American historical development. Second, an Anglo-American partnership is the best guarantor of peace and prosperity. Third, relating to the Americans is best done from a position of strength and self confidence, not from supine weakness, and moral carping.
As usual Mr. Gilbert has fashioned an informative and interesting volume on his favorite topic. Its contents echo from the past to find relevance today.
Chad
