Sir Winston Spencer Churchill lived a hectic exciting life. A famous politician, writer, and even a little adventurer, he became a symbol, uniting not only his own nation, but also other European peoples in the fight against fascism. Churchill's memoirs are most critical. He was not afraid to admit to his own mistakes and mistakes of his Western colleagues, convinced that the Second World War could have been avoided. But such apparent frankness is just the tip of the iceberg.
Annals of the new 30-year war in Europe
The Second World War, part I (volumes 1, 2), the author himself in the foreword was considered as a continuation of the conversation about the First World War. And along with such equally original works as The Eastern Front, The World Crisis, and Consequences, Winston Churchill called the annals.
This period he quite aptly designated as the new Thirty Years War in Europe. Having looked closely, you can find many analogies. Winston Churchill himself regarded World War I as a conflict of nations, not governments.
The recklessness of the winners
The anger, rage and bloodthirstiness of a mad war gave way to lull - preparation for even more terrible trials. Assessing this interwar period, the author wrote that the winners themselves barely stood on their feet. However, with the necessary will and determination, it was still possible to stop and extinguish dangerous destructive tendencies in the bud.
The moment was missed for a number of reasons described and scrupulously analyzed in the “Second World War” by Churchill. Briefly name them, we get the following:
- weak British government of the period 1931-1935;
- the inaction and disunity of England and France in matters of foreign policy towards Germany;
- US isolationism, a policy of non-interference in European affairs.
A war that could be stopped with a stroke of the pen
Winston Churchill, according to a number of historians, was not competent in economic matters. Even though he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain in the 1920s. I immediately recall a whole complex of unsuccessful reforms that complicated the economic situation of wide sections of the population, which almost led to a dangerous social explosion. The disaster was only avoided with great difficulty.
Therefore, on the one hand, it is not surprising that he avoids a serious analysis of the delicate issues in the complex economic relations of European states. On the other hand, he simply gives some of the most striking examples of the scale of assistance that was provided to defeated Germany. The figure is two billion pounds. And the amount of reparations that the Germans had to pay to the winners was one billion pounds.
But the most glaring case of support for the aggressors, who were ultimately guilty of unleashing a new world conflict, can be considered the supply of oil to Italy, when the latter invaded Abyssinia in 1935. Churchill’s book “World War II” directly indicates that the sanctions that the European allies imposed against Italy did not affect resources such as oil, cast iron, and steel bars. The United States, unashamedly, supplied everything that Mussolini so needed.
A wounded beast is the most dangerous
The Germans are a very proud people who could not reconcile with their defeat. Such brilliant minds as General von Sext and many other best officers of the country gradually, without attracting unnecessary attention, trained personnel. This grossly violated the Treaty of Versailles, and Churchill openly admitted that their intelligence simply missed the moment when the legendary General Staff was formed under the guise of the Department of Reconstruction, Science and Culture in Germany, which gathered and trained the best generals in the world.
Churchill's books are full of factual material, where he tries, albeit clumsily, to reduce the responsibility of the United States and Great Britain for raising a monster, whom these countries were going to throw on the Soviets that they hated. In his writings, he stigmatizes the actions of the government of his country, which, under the plausible pretext of establishing equality in Europe, essentially destroyed its own and French military power. Stubbornly did not notice how Germany, under Hitler’s rule, became a real threat.
The ugly brainchild of communism and the Munich tragedy
It was this formulation of fascism that the famous politician designated in his memoirs, trying, thus, to shift at least part of the guilt in preparing to unleash a world-wide war on the young Soviet state. At the same time, we must give him credit, in his book “World War II,” Churchill admits that the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia finally untied the hands of Hitler, who assured his political partners that this was the last territorial claim of his country.
The Poles were as follows. This, despite the fact that they also had certain agreements with Germany, but Churchill avoids this point. In his works, this is a convenient way, referring to his ignorance, to get away from covering the most uncomfortable events of the historical period under consideration.
By and large, the Europeans did not make any special distinctions between communism and Nazism, considering them an absolute evil. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill held a similar opinion, but he is favorably distinguished by one interesting feature, which is practically absent from other Western historians. He not only tried to understand the motivation of his opponents, but also respected their position and interests. He might disagree with them, but he was always interested in understanding what motivated them.
So, in the summer of 1932 he had the opportunity to meet with Adolf Hitler. But this meeting was not destined to take place. Hitler himself canceled it for some reason, and the future influential English politician subsequently shied away from new invitations, rightly believing that these visits might not have the best effect on public opinion about him and his career.
Fox and lion in one person
Cynicism, cunning and cruelty are natural conditions of any political game. Especially if the interests of entire nations are at stake. Churchill fully possessed courage, political intuition, and a bit of adventurism. 1940, no doubt, was a real test of the strength of Great Britain. She was left alone with her powerful adversary and had to pay a high price for all the mistakes and miscalculations of her government.
Churchill was multifaceted, unpredictable. Caution was replaced by reckless courage. Bitterness and resentment gave way to pragmatism. This can be seen in the example of the all-round assistance that the Allies provided to the USSR in the moments of the most difficult military period. The change in rhetoric and actions was dictated by the conditions of the current moment. He appreciated this pragmatism in his opponents.
Mysterious, hostile and incomprehensible Russia
Churchill's book, World War II, vividly illustrates certain views of the famous politician who approached many things with amazing simplicity. He clearly distinguished between good and evil in his worldview. All opponents of the West were appointed evil. It is no coincidence that JV Stalin called Churchill the “arsonist of war”, who did not change his mind about the Soviets even a bit since the time of the Foreign Military Intervention in Russia (1918-1921).
At the same time, he acknowledged that before Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin had a firmer and more distinct position on Germany. Just the Western allies suffered indecision, for which they subsequently paid. The Soviet Union also did not benefit from collusion with Hitler.
The socialist side can be understood. Too many proposals that could radically change the policy of the “main aggressor”, the British (either because of their shortsightedness, or malice) were dismissed with contempt, believing in the absolute infallibility of their views.
All the most difficult and terrible is just ahead
Books about the Second World War, describing the horror, suffering and pain of millions of people who find themselves in a giant meat grinder are riddled with one idea: this should never be repeated in the history of mankind. Churchill, one of the most active and influential participants in those events, writes about this. But he is more realistic in his wishes and forecasts. According to him, the world will face even more terrible trials. Not all contradictions were overcome during the global clarification of the relations of the most influential people on the planet.
It is the new generation that will try to overcome the impending crisis, using the experience of the past. Although, after reading this book, there remains a feeling of some fatalism, since all roles have long been practically distributed.
Churchill World War II reviews
The book is mixed. There are more than enough controversial moments in it, since the author is difficult to blame for excessive frankness. Too many episodes are left without due attention. It is also not mentioned, for obvious reasons, about the various undercurrents to one degree or another influenced and affecting the natural course of history.
Readers' opinions, of course, were divided. Only time and a new layer of comprehensive information will put an end to the debate. Apparently, this will not happen soon.