By Alan Caruba
An older generation of Americans who
lived through World War II recall the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill,
who John F. Kennedy said, “In the dark days and darker nights when England stood
alone and most men save Englishmen despaired of England’s life, he mobilized the
English language and sent it into battle.”
As Margaret Thatcher is laid to rest
with full honors, it would be well to recall that she would not have been Prime
Minister if there had not been a Winston Churchill. Against the most daunting
odds, he mobilized England against the threat of Nazi Germany and its allies,
Italy and Japan. After World War Two broke out in 1939, England would wait years
before the United States joined the war after having been attacked by the Empire
of Japan in 1941.
America had a strong isolationist
streak from the years before it joined the allies to defeat Germany in World War
I and it remained strong as the Nazis seized control of one European nation
after another in the 1930s and 40s. Churchill knew that if England was to
survive, he had to strengthen the bonds between America and England. It was a
task to which he had devoted his life.
It was by any measure, an
extraordinary life. His mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American, born in Brooklyn
in 1854, the daughter of a leading American entrepreneur. Churchill’s father was
Randolph Churchill, the son of the Eighth Duke of Marlborough. On November 30,
1874, Winston was born. On April 9, 1963, Churchill received an honorary
citizenship from the United States. He would live until January 24, 1965, dying
at age ninety.
A book by his official biographer, the
historian Martin Gilbert, “Churchill and America”, tells the story of his long
love of America, one that was returned by generations of Americans who shared
their times with him. Churchill was, contrary to what one might expect, not born
into great wealth, but his parents did rank among British aristocracy. Churchill
loved his parents, as he put it, “from a distance.” What he had inherited from
them was a prodigious intelligence, courage, and a tenacity that his
contemporaries understood would rescue them after earlier prime ministers had
failed to act against the threat of Hitler.
Churchill’s relationship with Franklin
D. Roosevelt mirrored in some ways that which Margaret Thatcher had with Ronald
Reagan. Like Churchill, they were comfortable in their own skin and possessed
principles that valued liberty and freedom in the face of aggression. Like
Churchill before them, they understood the threat of Communism in the form of
the Soviet Union that Reagan openly called “the evil
empire.”
Thatcher, the first and thus far the
only woman PM, showed her grit when she rescued England from its steep decline,
battling the trade unions and other forces, and succeeding to a point that the
news of her death reawakened the enmity they felt for her when she lived.
At age 25, in 1900, Churchill was
first elected to Parliament. He would serve there, with only a two-year break,
for more than sixty years. He would hold a variety of roles as part of PM’s
cabinets, all of which prepared him for the years he would serve in that post.
Throughout those years, Churchill was uncannily prescient in identifying the
trends of his time and, throughout those years, he remained enamored of America.
While his fame rested on his
achievements in government, his wealth was based in a prodigious writing talent,
particularly in the arena of history. He wrote many books and many magazine
articles. Another source of wealth came from the many speaking tours he had,
touring the U.S. In the course of his visits, he came to know many outstanding
leaders in business and government here and his admiration for them was
reciprocated.
Even so, he would have to labor long
and hard to bring America into the war before the attack on Pearl Harbor
facilitated it. “Apparently, you always have to have a disaster before anything
sensible can be done which would prevent it.” In 1939, he joined the War Cabinet
as First Lord of the Admiralty.
The generations since World War II
cannot imagine the threat that existed in those days. In 1940, when Churchill
became Prime Minister, he had been in office just thirty-six days as Germany
conquered Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France. FDR did
what he could to assist England but was hampered by a Neutrality Act that
imposed difficulties; American opinion and the need to be reelected made action
difficult as well.
We can, with the benefit of hindsight,
look back and say that it all turned out as it was supposed to, but Churchill
had to deal with an unknown future, a nation that had been weakened by World War
I, and one that was in great need of ships, the weapons of war, and
munitions.
Americans may think that the Normandy
landings on June 6, 1944 were an American victory, but it was in fact the
culmination of intensive Anglo-American planning. U.S. soldiers, sailors and
airmen were joined by 61,715 British and Canadian troops. At war’s end,
Churchill’s political party lost the majority in Parliament and he was required
to step aside. He would be returned as Prime Minister from 1951 to
1955.
Margaret Thatcher once said,"I
had the patriotic conviction that, given great leadership of the sort I heard
from Winston Churchill in the radio broadcasts to which we listened, there was
almost nothing that the British people could not do."
She well knew the lessons of
Churchill’s life and leadership in the gravest years of England’s history. In
addition to her own indomitable character, she could draw on Churchill’s
example. Americans owe a debt of gratitude to both of them.
© Alan Caruba, 2013
2 comments:
What is it about the Brits that, in the past century or so, they have trouble coming up with even one competent leader per generation?
I lived in the UK during the Iron Lady's first few years as PM. The local folks I knew were generally impressed. It was the trade unions and the Scots (but I repeat myself) who hated her. Kinnock was at the top of the hate list.
Excellent article. The two best Prime Minister's of Britain in the 20th Century. The current mob on both sides of the Atlantic are not fit to be pawn's at their feet.
Post a Comment