DEFLATING THE CHURCHILL MYTH
WASHINGTON November 17, 2008
Much of the Western world just honored the millions of soldiers fallen in the two world wars. But we also need to look beyond post-war myths and understand the tragic political mistakes that sent these soldiers to die in wars that might have been avoided.
In his powerful new book, `Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War,’ veteran politician and author Pat Buchanan challenges many historic taboos by claiming that Winston Churchill plunged Britain and its empire, including Canada, into wars whose outcome was disastrous for all concerned.

Other writers, me included, have made the same point for decades, but Buchanan has marshaled a formidable array of facts and historians to support his case.

For me, World War I was the most tragic 20th Century conflict. It was triggered by Serbia and Austro-Hungary. After Russia and France began gearing for war, Germany was dragged into the conflict by the doomsday machine of troop mobilization schedules. Britain could have halted the war, or let the continental powers fight until they came to a truce. But Churchill and his fellow imperialists determined to destroy Germany, a new rival to Britain’s wealth and power.

World War I should have ended in 1917 when both sides were exhausted and stalemated. America’s entry into the war resulted in Germany’s defeat and ensuing post-war suffering. The German, Habsburg, and Ottoman Empires were torn apart by the lupine victors and reduced to ruin, creating today’s unstable Balkans and Mideast.

Had Germany and its allies not been defeated, had a Carthaginian Peace not been imposed upon them at Versailles and Trianon, there might never have been a Hitler, Communist Russia or World War II. Europe’s Jews may have escaped destruction.

Churchill made the fatal error in World War II of backing Poland’s hold on Danzig even though Britain could do nothing to defend Poland, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia from Hitler’s attempts to reunite million of Germans stranded in these new nations by the dreadful Versailles Treaty. Britain’s declaration of war on Germany over Poland led to a general European war. After suffering 5.6 million dead, Poland ended up occupied by the Soviet Union.

Buchanan’s heretical view, and mine, is that the Western democracies should have let Hitler expand his Reich eastward until it inevitably went to war with the even more dangerous Soviet Union. Once these despotisms had exhausted themselves, the Western democracies would have been left dominating Europe. The lives of millions of Western civilians and soldiers would have been spared.

In the end, Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt were so obsessed with crushing Germany, and so seduced by `Uncle Joe’ Stalin, they handed half of Europe to the Soviet Union, a far more murderous and dangerous tyranny by an order of magnitude than Hitler’s Germany. From his Soviet gulag cell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn called Roosevelt and Churchill `stupid.’

Buchanan’s book is important because we see some Western leaders making the same grave errors as in the 20th Century and idolizing the arch imperialist, Churchill. The latest example: extension of NATO to Russia’s borders. As in the case of Poland in 1939, the West cannot defend the Baltic, Ukraine or Georgia, and has no vital interests there.

Yet NATO is giving the rulers of these nations the ability to drag them into a potential nuclear war with Russia. Georgia’s idiotic little aggression this fall offers a striking example. Ukraine’s independence must be guaranteed, but it must not be transformed into a dagger pointed at Russia’s underbelly.

Have we learned nothing from the 20th Century’s apocalyptic wars? As Buchanan says, Churchill’s giveaway of Eastern Europe at Moscow and Yalta was a far graver blunder than Chamberlain’s concessions at Munich in 1938.

Buchanan’s book strips away lingering war propaganda and shows the cynicism, lust for power, and foolishness of the `saintly’ Allied war leaders and their `good’ war.

As Ben Franklin said, there is no good war, nor bad peace.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008
Steve Naidamast
Friday, January 28, 2011 4:59 PM
Though I enjoy Eric Margolis' articles very much there are a few minor clarifications to this article that need to be made. The Austria-Hungarian Empire did not start WWI and did not intend to initiate an international conflict. Nor did all political echelons want to react violently towards Serbia; the least of all Emperor Franz Josef. Unfortunately at 84 years of age he had to depend more on his aides than his own intuition. In addition, the Military Chief of Staff, Hutzendorf, was a war monger in the worst way and couldn't wait to attack the Serbs, who as a people were hardly responsible for what happened, though there were many political leaders who were sympthetic to Princep's Black Hand, whom by the way would have never formed if Empress Maria-Theresa of Austria had never made what to most was a minor policy decision about the Balkans in the mid 18th century (talk about the threads of history).

Nonetheless, it was approximately 6 weeks after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand before Austria attacked Serbia and that as a result of a foolish set of conditions no government could hope to concede to. Nonetheless, as Eric notes, Russia mobilized to defend Serbia and it was this mobilization that actually initiated the conflict.

Kaiser Wilhelm desperately tried to contact his cousin the Czar to ask him not to mobilize, which he most likely would have had Wilhelm gotten through in the 12 hour window he was afforded at the time. Unfortunately, he could not make contact in time and the Russian forces started for the fronts.

In 1915, The German Chief of Staff, Falkenhayn tried to negotiate with England for a peace that would allow all sides to return to their original borders. England refused outright.

In 1917, the German Army summarily defeated the allies and had won the war. Then Wilson sent new, fresh American troops and initiated further conflict by attacking the exhausted German forces. the reason given by most observers and most likely had a lot to do with it is that American bankers did not want to see England defeated and thus not get their loans repaid, which in turn were the basis for the impossible reparations forced upon Germany after the conclusion of hostilities; something even the European allies did not approve of...

Though, the sparks for war appeared to begin with Austria-Hungary and then Russia, the reality is, is that England's politicians and military chieftains were of different attitudes. The military had been working with French military officers for a while prior to the outbreak of the conflict to devise a plan to come t o France's aid if war came to pass. Most of England's political leadership were quite adverse to entering a conflict, with the exception of Churchill who couldn't wait to start shooting... Britain's greatest, modern war-monger...
Robet L. Owens
Sunday, February 06, 2011 5:11 PM
Steve is right on traget. This all something that needs to be said. Professor Sidney B. Fay, of Harvard wrote a definitive book on the origins of the war, with just that title. While generally accepted many chose to ignore it because it flew in the face of what America believed about the war, per the propagnada. But the book is still there but not easy to find. And there has been a mass of evidence suggesting the British were not pure in what the said to lea us into the war, such as the nurse in Belgium that the German executed as spy, who it turns out to be just that - a spy.

Then we could go on how our involvement bungled the peace and allowed France to have its way, setting up the world for WWII.
T
There are currently 2 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category