Posted on 07/02/2007 9:16:18 AM PDT by steve-b
...I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it, but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill
‘Against a great deal of pressure not to. Many in the British government were pushing for a conditional surrender.’
I’d really love to see a link to this if you have one, though I doubt you have unless it was in a parallel world!
“To some extent, do you think he has rose colored glasses about Islam as a whole?”
Personally, I believe there is a systemic series of misconceptions at all level of the federal gov’t, starting with the President and right on through to the Pentagon and State Department.
The first misconception is a belief that all people are alike and want the same things, and want them in the American/Western fashion. To a certain extent, this is true, however, The real question is at what point does the wholesale adaptqation of Western Cvilization become uncomfortable, or dangerous, to non-Western Cultures? I’m sure if you asked your typical Iraqi if he wanted indoor plumbing, good education, plentiful food and cable TV, he’d say: HELL YEAH. But, what happens when the the process of obtaining these things requires that his cultural and religious beliefs come into conflict with some of the esoterics that these things bring with them? A good education, for example, might weaken belief in Islam. Cable TV has the ability to inform or arouse public discontent, when it it isn’t beaming Brittney Spears’ belly button into your living room and corrupting your children.
The next problem is the tendency to seemingly believe every ex-patriate of any sh*thole on the planet that comes, hat-in-hand, claiming that there is ‘a democracy movement’ in his country, and then committing American support, material or moral, to this cause. We’ve been hearing about democracy movements in Iran, China, South America, and a dozen other places that never seem to materialize.
Of course, there’s the realpolitik at the other end of this spectrum; the circumstances that can cause Brent Scowcroft to say, with a straight face, that fostering democratic movements in the Middle East would endanger the “stability” of the region. Actually, the issue is one where prinicples bump up against reality; “stability” in the sense of criminal governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other oil-producing countries is bought and paid for not only with Yankee dollars, but with repression to which we, the guardians of liberty, turn a blind eye. To make a decision, to fight oppression or to allow to continue in our own selfish, economic interests, is too tough a call to make for them.
The final problem is the fear, which is palpable, of the American government to act in it’s best interests if doing so might be considerd unseemly, especially if it’s in front of a television camera. Nations which fail to act in their own best interests have a nasty way of ceasing to be nations.
I don’t believe the problem is ‘rose-colored glasses’ as much as it is an inability to make tough choices taken in a spirit of national interest.
The similarity is that Buchannan and Paul--like Churchill, are courageous enough to stand up for what they know to be true--however much derision they suffer and whatever the political cost for doing so.
In fact... Germany did not declare war or attack England first...
I know all about it.
But what countries profess--even sincerely profess--to want . . . .
And what those in power profess--even sincerely profess--to want, can be very different from what either may do in the future.
Churchill studied--and most important, understood--history.
He knew that Germany was on track to becoming the dominant power of Europe.
And under the influence of that power, Germany would develop new appetites.
They may stand up for what they THINK to be true, and that is laudable in anyone.
But, in my opinion, and that of many others who are equally knowlegable and principled as you suggest Buchanan and Paul are, they are wrong.
Buchanan and Paul are neither all seeing nor all knowing.
And they said the same about Churchill, too, until events proved Churchill right.
Thanks for the cartoon.
I shudder to think that just about anyone born after “The Sixties”
in the USA probably wouldn’t have a clue as to the context and message
of that cartoon/graphic.
As in one average soldier, alone with his rifle, shaking a defiant fist
against the menace of a massive Luftwaffe.
I haven’t been able to find it, but in the early day of the Internet,
I ran across an opinion piece that said the last line of a message
to headquarters in London before “the miracle of Dunkirk” was realized
ended with the line “...and if not...”
I think it was an allusion to a passage in the book of Daniel in which
the Babylonian king was informed that even if was to threaten execution,
some of the Jews would NOT bow to worship him.
another historical post prompted by the cartoon (post #22)...
“War of the Unknown Warriors”
BBC Broadcast
July 14,1940
“We are fighting by ourselves alone; but we are not fighting for ourselves alone.”
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=419
“...that most of the world has its collective heads up their collective butts, and considers Bush a rabid warmonger as it is.”
I don’t see what, if any, relevance this has, at all. It’s not as if the world will turn it’s back on the United States for simply doing that which it finds itself compelled to do. The idea that it would is simply the regurgitation of a small, but very vocal and media-savvy minority, whose outlook on life and things in general is directly in opposition to that of the majority of Americans. For the most part, the people who scream the loudest are;
a) Those that still believe Communism is a viable system, but we ‘just haven’t find the right communists yet’ or
b) Are too lazy to defend their own freedoms, and feel grossly inadequate when others do it for them. And just for fun,
c) As Orwell once pinted out, people who are inimical to the greater mass of society as it exists because society does not seem to have a use for them...and their self-proclaimed superior intellects.
I have no illusions that should the whining bellyachers in France, Russia and the Berkeley faculty lounge ever find themselves as visciously attacked as the United States was on 9/11 that they would hesitate to either respond as we have, or scream loudly for someone to do it for them (because, you know, they’re too self-important to pick up a weapon and stand post themselves, in re: the Berkely faculty).
The real issue is that there is a large number of people on this planet who find the concept of physical courage anachronistic and barbarous, hence, it is why they have none and spend their days in panty-bunched fear. In terms of nations, France, Russia and a whole host of other governments that have criticized us, have vested interests in doing so; Russia will seek to weaken us in any way they can, and propaganda victories are the cheapest and easiest to achieve. France has millions of disaffected Muslims living and fomenting dissent right inside it’s borders.
I wouldn’t pay any attention to them at all, for the simple reason that they all require the United States on some level, and they all fear it, as well. Especially those on the political left because America will ALWAYS represent a viable (and infinitely more attractive) alternative to what they have to offer.
Whose views on foreign policy are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to those of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. There is no parallel.
Did it ever occur to you that the world Churchill lived in is substantially different form today's world, and so Churchill might have different views on foreign policy today?
Thank you for the interesting comparison.
Since the Catholic Church and Great Britain are the bankruptcy trustees of the United States from the "New Deal" era; FDR couldn't refuse Churchill. Rep. James Trafficant layed it out on the floor of the house once. His speech is all over the web - if you don't want to read. At many of the sites you will find the enabling legislation from the Congress and the States. It is fascinating reading to see what FDR did to us and how it is all coming home to roost.
Yes, I have considered it.
And I believe that if Churchill were here in July 2007, he would find that he and President Bush saw some very important issues in the very same way. In particular, foreign policy and dealing with a dangerous foe.
I DO think that Churchill would be more inclined to use more force than Bush ever would, but I think he would do it out of complete ignorance of the pervasive and shaping influence of the media.
Granted, they did have newspapers in those days. Maybe some newsreels. And radio. But most importantly, the media that DID exist in those days was not being used in the same way that even the same media (Such as newspapers) are being used today.
Churchill would be caught off guard much the same way Patton would be caught off guard in their interactions with the media of today. (Granted, Patton was caught off guard by the media in back THEN in the fall of 1943...)
But I digress.
As for how he would view those two...I think he would only like the prickliness of Buchanan, and would dislike Ron Paul as a dolt. (Whether Ron Paul is or isn't a dolt, I am not saying for the point I make here. This is how I think Churchill would view him.)
Again, this is my opinion, and you have yours. Neither one of us can ask him. I go on the basis of the books that I have read about Churchill, the best of which I believe is The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 by William Manchester, who also wrote Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War to describe his time as a US Marine in the Pacific.
As I recall of Manchester, he was a bit of a Lib, but could write well and back it up with solid research. A good read.
But anyway, that is how I see Churchill.
Can’t argue with that.
Yep, the opportunity of the century.
“Pat Buchannan, and more recently, Ron Paul, are the closest to being like Winston Churchill in our time.”
Get real.
Churchill would have pi**ed on Buchannan, and Ron Paul couldn’t muster up enough intellectual firepower to burn calories. Churchill is a light bulb while either of these men is but a pale shadow.
I will give Pat credit for ONE thing, though, and that is the “Broken Clock” quality of being right at least twice a decade. It’s the prime reason why he’s MSNBC’s token conservative curmudgeon, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.