THOU
SHALT NOT CHALLENGE THE ORTHODOXY
With
the predictable exception of Professor Charmley, no one would
support Clark. Saying that certain British wars are wrong is a
common occupation among historians and politicians. The
Opium War, the ultimate Open Door policy
where Britain forcibly sold opium to China, makes most Britons
ashamed. The
Boer War comes close, if it was not for
the Left’s racial hatred for the Afrikaans. Even the rationale
of the First World War has been challenged, by the economist JM
Keynes, the historian Niall
Fergusson and the conduct of the war was
attacked by Alan
Clark himself. We are also capable of
self-analysis
on our shortcomings during the Second World War. The reaction
was not against the idea that a foreign war was bad. It was a
reaction to the idea that the Second World War was a bad war.
The question is why do the British react in such a way to this
heresy? Once one knows that, the militaristic mindset of the British
becomes more comprehensible.
BIRD
OF A BRIGHT PLUMAGE
One
of the reasons for the adverse reaction to Alan Clark’s book was
the nature of the man himself. Although a talented
military historian and an intelligent
thinker, Alan Clark courted a reputation as a political lightweight
and dilettante. His aristocratic background made it appear that
his political career had come easily thus far. He once commented
on a self-made millionaire that "he bought all his furniture."
His indiscretions
were not only legendary, but were actually publish in his Diaries.
He was a philanderer of massive proportions and was famous for
reading a speech in Parliament when obviously drunk. Margaret
Thatcher although admiring his skills as a military analyst never
promoted him to Defence Secretary because she said, "Could
you imagine Alan’s finger on the nuclear button?" The flourishing
of a bright plumage may get one noticed, but it does not get one
taken seriously.
THE FLAWED
MESSENGER
Those
who did take Alan Clark seriously saw something more
sinister in the book. Alan Clark had an
ambivalent view on Hitler. This is not the same as the old smear
that one too often hears against Pat Buchanan, so expertly demolished
by Justin
Raimondo; this smear has some facts behind
it. Before he became an MP he was scheduled to give a talk on
"The wit and wisdom of Adolph Hitler," until the students
he was addressing were forced to cancel the meeting. He named
his dogs after Hitler’s mistress and pilot. When once accused
of being a fascist he replied "I’m not a Fascist, they are
bourgeois shop keepers who care only for their dividends, I am
a National Socialist". He staunchly defended British soccer
hooligans, saying their behaviour was "brave." Even
his opposition
to the Kosovo adventure was on the belief
that in wars which pitted Muslims against Christians, we should
be on the Christian side. Whether this was merely a wish to shock
the middle class sensibilities of British politics or a genuine
sympathy, we will never really know. It is hard to ignore the
offensive silliness and look at the argument beyond, and many
refuse to make that effort.
TRUST
AND MR. HITLER
Mr.
Clark’s enemies would often attack him for his naiveté.
Mr. Clark, they would say, wanted the British to take a gamble
on trusting Hitler. This was a misunderstanding of the argument,
which was that the war was not worth fighting, and that Hitler
had no will to invade Britain, at least when he had eastern fish
to fry. Lebensraum (Hitler’s "room to breathe") did
not encompass the small, densely populated and relatively developed
island of Great Britain. Even when the Germans occupied the East,
they would be too exhausted to look at Britain. In the meantime,
the British were to keep well armed and wary. It was not trust
that Mr. Clark was after, it was cynicism.
NOT ON
OFFER
Another
criticism of the thesis was that Hitler was so intent on war that
he had no intention of making peace and so any offer of peace
on the British side would be construed as weakness. This is a
good criticism, if it fitted with the facts. The Western Front
was what lost Hitler the war. No military man, except Mr. Clinton
and Mr. Blair, launches a war on two fronts. The audacity of the
German move in 1941 that gave the Germans such startling success,
as only a mad man would believe that they would try a war on two
fronts. Perhaps Stalin was not so obstinate after all in ignoring
warnings of Hitler’s moves; it was just that common sense was
not applicable in relation to Hitler. Not only were the Germans
offering peace, but they also had a very real interest in securing
it.
THE FEAR
OF VICHY
The
memory of the Vichy collaboration still haunts French. What is
less well known is that the very idea of Vichy style collaboration
also haunts
the British. We saw outwardly decent and
patriotic Frenchmen, Austrians and many others collaborating with
the Germans, while far fewer aided the Resistance, and this haunts
us. Indeed, we have a partial answer in the plight of the Channel
Islands, which Germany occupied from 1940
until the end of the war. The administration did collaborate with
the Germans and this suggests that the British would have collaborated
like other occupied peoples. The idea of letting another power
occupy your country is seen, rightly, with horror by almost every
British person.
NOT THE
VICHY OPTION
The
British were not in the same position as France. France accepted
humiliating terms because they could either surrender or be conquered.
Germany had broken the French army and occupied a large part of
the country. The only way in which the French could get more autonomy
was to let the Germans have what they wished, it was a tough choice
that we must thank God that Britain and America did not have to
face. We were in a different position as we were unconquered,
our army was bloodied but unbroken and after the Battle of Britain
we had unchallenged control of the air and sea. The fact was that
while Britain would not make peace as a victor, it would make
peace as an equal to Germany, the humiliating terms accepted by
the French were not an issue here. The very proximity of Britain
to the continent meant that we feared we were close to invasion,
as before our victory in the Battle of Britain, they were. It
is a one of the psychological fears that haunts us, and one that
Americans will never fully understand.
THE HOLOCAUST
A
very emotionally powerful argument against the appeasement school
of history is that the British would have supported the Holocaust
if they allowed Hitler to fight Stalin unimpeded. This ignores
the fact that the war was about the balance of power in Europe
and not the Holocaust; and that the Final Solution started in
1942 after Mr. Clark’s window of opportunity had shut. The fear,
which Pat Buchanan is finding, is that not to intervene is that
some people see it as approving the Holocaust. It may be factually
incorrect, but it is from the highest of motives and playing on
this feeling will be a powerful weapon for a long time in any
interventionist’s moral armoury.
A GENERATIONS'
SACRIFICE
Americans
lost many of their best men and much of their treasure in the
Second World War, Britain lost its place in the world. The complete
transformation of Britain from an Empire to an island, from a
global power to a European province and from a net creditor to
a net debtor occurred during the war. Although Britain did not
suffer from the deprecations of an invasion, it lost a large part
of its wealth through German aerial bombardment. There were many
civilian casualties and the country was dislocated. The world’s
first industrial economy mortgaged its considerable overseas wealth
and it abandoned the Empire to its fate. Many of Britain’s problems
today, from its unworkable integration into Europe, the Australian
vote on the monarchy and the dire need for permanent infusions
of inward investment are due to the Second World War. This is
not beyond doubt, what is argued is whether this sacrifice was
worthwhile. Although Alan Clark argued that for this reason we
should not have continued with the war, to many people this is
exactly why the war is off limits as a political question. The
sacrifice is too great, in America it makes Donald Trump sound
good, imagine what it sounds like to the British who have lost
so much more. To say that this war was not worth fighting is wrongly
seen as a deep insult to many that lost so much.
THE FINEST
HOUR
One
may hate war; its wastefulness; its loss of the most promising
men in a generation; its aid to a despotic state; but it can bring
out the finest in a nation. Britain felt a sense of solidarity,
victory and gratitude to those who fought that war. It may be
mythologised, the doubts forgotten, the fears erased, but to many,
even those who were not yet born it makes up a very real part
of who we are as a nation. The very fact that Britain stood alone
for almost a year against a triumphal Germany was in many senses
a military triumph, and deserves to be remembered for that. It
may not affect the validity of the factual case for going in to
the war, but emotionally it will always have that effect. We are
rightly proud of what we, or our parents, did in the war, it is
our Fourth of July.
WHY THE
BRITISH WILL ALWAYS WISH TO INTERVENE
I
have tried to explain our emotional attachment to the Second World
War. The case in A
Republic not an Empire
was clear, that entry into the Second World War was not in America’s
interests. I think it is hard to argue otherwise, at least
relying solely on the facts. In Britain, it was not so clear cut.
The proximity of Germany; the importance of a Balance of Power;
the ability of modern warfare to project itself on all a civilian
population all make the Second World War seem more in Britain’s
interests than it was in America’s. Our emotional attachment to
the war effort is even stronger than it is in America, and for
that reason the case against the Second World War will not be
up for debate for a long time.
This
week will see Remembrance Day in Britain (November 11). Please
let us pray for and remember all those that fell in European wars.
Let us work for a genuine peace in remembrance to them, so that
their great-grandchildren will not needlessly die in a foreign
field. May they Rest In Peace.