I got back into history reading in 2015. One of the most interesting books (or rather series of books) I have read was Winston Churchill’s The Second World War. It’s a great read despite it having some obvious flows as a piece of historiography. Churchill being directly involved in the events he describes does not classify exactly as an impartial observer. Yet, if you keep this fact in mind, his books are extremely interesting and provide a powerful insight to the greatest armed conflict in human history as seen through the eyes of one of the most powerful, influential and thus well-informed men of that time. His narrative is founded on extraordinary prose (which eventually granted Churchill a Nobel Prize in literature) and radiates the iron character of this larger-than-life historical figure.
I don’t see much point in further reviewing such a classic book. Instead I can only urge anyone interested in modern world history to give it a shot irrespectively of political views. I found it massively engaging.
Below is a collection of some especially interesting bits from the 6 tomes. These -among others- I found especially relevant to our times and thus I share.
On Post War Reparations
While most historians actually condemn the over-simplified notion that “history repeats itself” it is difficult to resist comparison of certain past events with their modern era equivalents. The following piece refers to the obligation of Germany to pay reparations to the victors of the First World War as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. It also describes what happened in reality between WWI and WWII. Take notice that this piece is about the First World War.
The economic clauses of the Treaty were malignant and silly to an extent that made them obviously futile. Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale. These dictates gave expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples that any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war.
The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them. The newspapers, after their fashion, reflected and emphasised the prevailing opinions. Few voices were raised to explain that payment of reparations can only be made by services or by the physical transportation of goods […] or that when these goods arrive in the demanding countries, they dislocate the local industry except in very primitive or rigorously controlled societies. In practice, as even the Russians have now learned, the only way of pillaging a defeated nation is to cart away any movables which are wanted, and to drive off a portion of its manhood as permanent or temporary slaves. But the profit gained from such processes bears no relation to the cost of the war. No one in great authority had the wit, ascendancy, or detachment from public folly to declare these fundamental, brutal facts to the electorates; nor would anyone have been believed if he had. The triumphant Allies continued to assert that they would squeeze Germany “till the pips squeaked.” All this had a potent bearing on the prosperity of the world and the mood of the German race.
In fact, however, these clauses were never enforced. On the contrary, whereas about one thousand million pounds of German assets were appropriated by the victorious Powers, more than one thousand five hundred millions were lent a few years later to Germany, principally by the United States and Great Britain, thus enabling the ruin of the war to be rapidly repaired in Germany. As this apparently magnanimous process was still accompanied by the machine-made howlings of the unhappy and embittered populations in the victorious countries, and the assurances of their statesmen that Germany should be made to pay “to the uttermost farthing,” no gratitude or good will was to be expected or reaped. Germany only paid, or was only able to pay, the indemnities later extorted because the United States was profusely lending money to Europe, and especially to her. In fact, during the three years 1926 to 1929 the United States was receiving back in the form of debt-instalment indemnities from all quarters about one-fifth of the money which she was lending to Germany with no chance of repayment..
However, everybody seemed pleased and appeared to think this might go on for ever.
History will characterise all these transactions as insane.
On Pre War Politics and Unholy Alliances
What we tend to forget when we refer to the “unholy alliances” of human history is that usually such labels are attributed in retrospect. The notion of traditional friendships and enmities among nations is nothing more than a convenient chimera vigorously used in politics for mass manipulation and political gains. The pre war environment in Europe is a characteristic example of an era when nations kept changing sides in their attempt to gain advantageous position in the upcoming conflict. The atmosphere was extremely volatile in terms of affiliations and subterfuge. Nations were trying to avoid the upcoming conflict while at the same time trying to get unfair advantage against everyone else. Yet another prisoner’s dilemma scenario in world history.
The most well known example of unholy alliance was of course that of the Nazi-Soviet alliance which was realised through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and was ditched by Hitler when it had outserved his purposes. But no matter how loathsome this Pact might seem today to the West there were many shifts of sides in the pre war Europe, some of which surface in Churchill’s careful narrative. One example is the Italo-Germanic conflict over Austria and the initial siding of the Italian Fascists with the Allies on this issue.
HITLER’S ACCESSION to the Chancellorship in 1933 had not been regarded with enthusiasm in Rome. Nazism was viewed as a crude and brutalised version of the Fascist theme. The ambitions of a Greater Germany towards Austria and in Southeastern Europe were well known. Mussolini foresaw that in neither of these regions would Italian interests coincide with those of the new Germany. Nor had he long to wait for confirmation. The acquisition of Austria by Germany was one of Hitler’s most cherished ambitions. The first page of Mein Kampf contains the sentence, “German Austria must return to the great German Motherland.” From the moment, therefore, of the acquisition of power in January, 1933, the Nazi German Government cast its eyes upon Vienna. Hitler could not afford as yet to clash with Mussolini, whose interest in Austria had been loudly proclaimed. Even infiltration and underground activities had to be applied with caution by a Germany as yet militarily weak.
[…]
There was at this moment a flicker of European unity against the German menace. On February 17, 1934, the British, French, and Italian Governments made a common declaration upon the maintenance of Austrian independence.
Way more surprising is the Anglo German naval Agreement which directly assaulted the Treaty of Versailles (and which in return had a huge impact on the later defense of France) as a diplomatic attempt to secure Britain’s military superiority over Germany.
[…] a most surprising act was committed by the British Government […] There had been for some time conversations between the British and German Admiralties about the proportions of the two navies. By the Treaty of Versailles the Germans were not entitled to build more than four battleships of ten thousand tons displacement, in addition to six ten-thousand-ton cruisers. The British Admiralty had recently found out that the last two pocket battleships being constructed, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, were of a far larger size than the Treaty allowed, and of a quite different type. In the face of this brazen and fraudulent violation of the Peace Treaty, carefully planned and begun at least two years earlier (1933), the Admiralty actually thought it was worth while making an Anglo-German naval agreement. His Majesty’s Government did this without consulting their French ally or informing the League of Nations. At the very time when they themselves were appealing to the League and enlisting the support of its members to protest against Hitler’s violation of the military clauses of the Treaty, they proceeded by a private agreement to sweep away the naval clauses of the same treaty. The main feature of the agreement was that the German Navy should not exceed one-third of the British. This greatly attracted the Admiralty, who looked back to the days before the Great War when we had been content with a ratio of sixteen to ten. For the sake of that prospect, taking German assurances at their face value, they proceeded to concede to Germany the right to build U-boats explicitly denied to her in the Peace Treaty.
[…]
The effect of the announcement was another blow to the League of Nations. The French had every right to complain that their vital interests were affected by the permission accorded by Great Britain for the building of U-boats. Mussolini saw in this episode evidence that Great Britain was not acting in good faith with her other allies, and that, so long as her special naval interests were secured, she would apparently go to any length in accommodation with Germany, regardless of the detriment to friendly Powers menaced by the growth of the German land forces. He was encouraged by what seemed the cynical and selfish attitude of Great Britain to press on with his plans against Abyssinia.
On Soviet Russia, Stalin and Communism
Under this atmosphere of mutual mistrust, the political ruthlessness of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact certainly seems less polarized. Though Churchill, a sworn enemy of Communism, never forgave the Soviets for their initial siding with the Axis. Even through he was forced to cooperate with them, he never hide his disdain for communism or his bitterness for the unholy alliance of the Bolseviks and the Nazis. The following lines are characteristic of his views.
I have recorded in the previous volume the course of Anglo-Soviet relations up till the outbreak of war and the hostility, verging upon an actual breach with Britain and France, which arose during the Russian invasion of Finland. Germany and Russia now (i.e. 1941) worked together as closely as their deep divergences of interest permitted. Hitler and Stalin had much in common as totalitarians, and their systems of government were akin. M. Molotov beamed on the German Ambassador, Count Schulenburg, on every important occasion, and was forward and fulsome in his approval of German policy and praise for Hitler’s military measures. When the German assault had been made upon Norway he had said (April 7) that “the Soviet Government understood the measures which were forced upon Germany. The English had certainly gone much too far. They had disregarded completely the rights of neutral nations…. We wish Germany complete success in her defensive measures.” Hitler had taken pains to inform Stalin on the morning of May 10 of the onslaught he had begun upon France and the neutral Low Countries. “I called on Molotov,” wrote Schulenburg. “He appreciated the news, and added that he understood that Germany had to protect herself against Anglo-French attack. He had no doubt of our success.” Although these expressions of their opinion were of course unknown till after the war, we were under no illusions about the Russian attitude.
The collapse of France and the destruction of the French armies and of all counter-poise in the West ought to have produced some reaction in Stalin’s mind, but nothing seemed to warn the Soviet leaders of the gravity of their own peril. On June 18, when the French defeat was total, Schulenburg reported, “Molotov summoned me this evening to his office and expressed the warmest congratulations of the Soviet Government on the splendid success of the German armed forces.” This was almost exactly a year from the date when these same armed forces, taking the Soviet Government by complete surprise, fell upon Russia in cataracts of fire and steel. We now know that only four months later in 1940 Hitler definitely decided upon a war of extermination against the Soviets, and began the long, vast, stealthy movement of these much-congratulated German armies to the East. No recollection of their miscalculation and former conduct ever prevented the Soviet Government and its Communist agents and associates all over the world from screaming for a Second Front, in which Britain, whom they had consigned to ruin and servitude, was to play a leading part. However, we comprehended the future more truly than these cold-blooded calculators, and understood their dangers and their interest better than they did themselves.
After an hour or so of this I clambered back along the bomb bay to the cabin and slept. I pondered on my mission to this sullen, sinister Bolshevik State I had once tried so hard to strangle at its birth, and which, until Hitler appeared, I had regarded as the mortal foe of civilised freedom. What was it my duty to say to them now? General Wavell, who had literary inclinations, summed it all up in a poem which he had shown me the night before. There were several verses, and the last line of each was, “No Second Front in nineteen forty-two.” It was like carrying a large lump of ice to the North Pole. Still, I was sure it was my duty to tell them the facts personally and have it all out face to face with Stalin, rather than trust to telegrams and intermediaries. At least it showed that one cared for their fortunes and understood what their struggle meant to the general war. We had always hated their wicked regime, and, till the German flail beat upon them, they would have watched us being swept out of existence with indifference and gleefully divided with Hitler our Empire in the East.
On a lighter but equally bitter note, he goes on recounting this tale:
His orderly, a Royal Marine, was shown the sights of Moscow by one of the tourist guides. “This,” said the Russian, “is the Eden Hotel, formerly Ribbentrop Hotel. Here is Churchill Street, formerly Hitler Street. Here is the Beaverbrook railway station, formerly Goering railway station.
Will you have a cigarette, comrade?”
The Marine replied, “Thank you, comrade, formerly bastard!”
One of the most chilling and powerful accounts in the whole series is Churchills portrait of the Soviet foreign minister and Stalin’s right hand, Vyacheslav Molotov:
“The figure whom Stalin had now moved to the pulpit of Soviet foreign policy deserves some description, not available to the British or French governments at the time. Vyacheslav Molotov was a man of outstanding ability and cold-blooded ruthlessness. He had survived the fearful hazards and ordeals to which all the Bolshevik leaders had been subjected in the years of triumphant revolution. He had lived and thrived in a society where ever-varying intrigue was accompanied by the constant menace of personal liquidation. His cannon-ball head, black moustache, and comprehending eyes, his slab face, his verbal adroitness and imperturbable demeanour, were appropriate manifestations of his qualities and skill. He was above all men fitted to be the agent and instrument of the policy of an incalculable machine. I have only met him on equal terms, in parleys where sometimes a strain of humour appeared, or at banquets where he genially proposed a long succession of conventional and meaningless toasts. I have never seen a human being who more perfectly represented the modern conception of a robot. And yet with all this there was an apparently reasonable and keenly-polished diplomatist. What he was to his inferiors I cannot tell. What he was to the Japanese Ambassador during the years when after the Tehran Conference Stalin had promised to attack Japan once the German Army was beaten can be deduced from his recorded conversations. One delicate, searching, awkward interview after another was conducted with perfect poise, impenetrable purpose, and bland official correctitude. Never a chink was opened. Never a needless jar was made. His smile of Siberian winter, his carefully measured and often wise words, his affable demeanour, combined to make him the perfect agent of Soviet policy in a deadly world.
Correspondence with him upon disputed matters was always useless, and, if pushed far, ended in lies and insults, of which this work will contain some examples. Only once did I seem to get a natural, human reaction. This was in the spring of 1942, when he alighted in Britain on his way back from the United States. We had signed the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, and he was about to make his dangerous flight home. At the garden gate of Downing Street, which we used for secrecy, I gripped his arm and we looked each other in the face. Suddenly he appeared deeply moved. Inside the image there appeared the man. He responded with an equal pressure. Silently we wrung each other’s hands. But then we were all together, and it was life or death for the lot. Havoc and ruin had been around him all his days, either impending on himself or dealt by him to others. Certainly in Molotov the Soviet machine had found a capable and in many ways a characteristic representative – always the faithful Party man and a Communist disciple. How glad I am at the end of my life not to have had to endure the stresses which he has suffered; better never to be born. In the conduct of foreign affairs Mazarin, Talleyrand, Metternich, would welcome him to their company, if there be another world to which Bolshevik allow themselves to go”
On Greece
Greece makes a relative small appearance on Churchill’s work (in relation to the length of the six volumes that is). The text is focused on the British campaigns anyway and the British involvement on Greek soil at the initial stages of the war was limited and largely unsuccessful, to the point that the British would mostly wish to forget about it.
However as with all his descriptions of the Allied powers, Churchill is not stingy to give praise to the Greeks when he believes they deserved it. Notably however, his most “famous” quote about the Greeks, at least as we Greeks like to reproduce it on every occasion does not appear in his WWII memoir.
What is more interesting in relation to modern Greek history is Churchill’s account of a Moschov meeting taking place during the peak of the war (that is years before the Yalta Conference) which essentially was a pre-agreement that divided Southern Europe into spheres of influence after the end of the conflict. Reading these lines in relation to the events that followed in Greece, is a spine chilling realization. According to Churchill everything was prescribed and predetermined on the back of a “napkin” .
WE ALIGHTED at Moscow on the afternoon of October 9, and were received very heartily and with full ceremonial by Molotov and many high Russian personages. This time we were lodged in Moscow itself, with every care and comfort. I had one small, perfectly appointed house, and Anthony another near by. We were glad to dine alone together and rest. At ten o’clock that night we held our first important meeting in the Kremlin. There were only Stalin, Molotov, Eden, Harriman, and I, with Major Birse and Pavlov as interpreters. It was agreed to invite the Polish Prime Triumph and Tragedy 273 Minister, M. Romer, the Foreign Secretary, and M. Grabski, a grey-bearded and aged academician of much charm and quality, to Moscow at once. I telegraphed accordingly to M. Mikolajczyk that we were expecting him and his friends for discussions with the Soviet Government and ourselves, as well as with the Lublin Polish Committee. I made it clear that refusal to come to take part in the conversations would amount to a definite rejection of our advice and would relieve us from further responsibility towards the London Polish Government. The moment was apt for business, so I said, “Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don’t let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?” While this was being translated I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper:
.
Romania: Russia 90% The others 10%
.
Greece: Great Britain (in accord with U.S.A.) 90% Russia 10%
.
Yugoslavia: 50-50%
.
Hungary: 50-50%
.
Bulgaria: Russia 75% The others 25%
.
I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down.
Equally spine chilling is Churchill’s account of the December 1944 events, known amongst Greeks as Δεκεμβριανά and his viewpoint of the British intervention in Greece and the start of the civil war.
On Sunday, December 3, Communist supporters, engaging in a banned demonstration, collided with the police and civil war began. The next day General Scobie ordered E.L.A.S. to evacuate Athens and the Piræus forthwith. Instead their troops and armed civilians tried to seize the capital by force. At this moment I took a more direct control of the affair. On learning that the Communists had already captured all the police stations in Athens, murdering the bulk of their occupants not already pledged to their attack, and were within half a mile of the Government offices, I ordered General Scobie and his 5000 British troops, who ten days before had been received with rapture as deliverers by the population, to intervene and fire upon the treacherous aggressors. It is no use doing things like this by halves. The mob violence by which the Communists sought to conquer the city and present themselves to the world as the Government demanded by the Greek people could only be met by firearms.
I have given instructions to General Wilson to make sure that all forces are left with you and all possible reinforcements are sent to you. You are responsible for maintaining order in Athens and for neutralising or destroying all E.A.M.-E.L. A.S. bands approaching the city. You may make any regulations you like for the strict control of the streets or for the rounding up of any number of truculent persons. Naturally E.L.A.S. will try to put women and children in the van where shooting may occur. You must be clever about this and avoid mistakes. But do not hesitate to fire at any armed male in Athens who assails the British authority or Greek authority with which we are working. It would be well of course if your commands were reinforced by the authority of some Greek Government, and Papandreou is being told by Leeper to stop and help. Do not however hesitate to act as if you were in a conquered city where a local rebellion is in progress. With regard to E.L.A.S. bands approaching from the outside, you should surely be able with your armour to give some of these a lesson which will make others unlikely to try. You may count upon my support in all reasonable and sensible action taken on this basis. We have to hold and dominate Athens. It would be a great thing for you to succeed in this without bloodshed if possible, but also with bloodshed if necessary. This telegram was dispatched at 4.50 A.M. on the 5th. I must admit that it was somewhat strident in tone. I felt it so necessary to give a strong lead to the military commander that I intentionally worded it in the sharpest terms. The fact that he had such an order in his possession would not only encourage him to decisive action, but gave him the certain assurance that I should be with him in any well-conceived action he might take, whatever the consequences might be. I felt grave concern about the whole business, but I was sure that there should be no room for doubts or hedging. I had in my mind Arthur Balfour’s celebrated telegram in the eighties to the British authorities in Ireland: “Don’t hesitate to shoot.”.
Not all mentions of Greece in Churchill’s books are morbid. The account of Archbishops’ Damaskinos visit to the British ship Ajax and the ludicrous events that followed worth’s a mention.
I and my party were to sleep on board the Ajax, anchored off the Piraeus, […] We boarded the Ajax before darkness fell, and I realised for the first time that it was Christmas Day. All preparations had been made by the ship’s company for a jolly evening, and we certainly disturbed them as little as possible. The sailors had a plan for a dozen of them to be dressed up in every kind of costume and disguise, as Chinese, Negroes, Red Indians, Cockneys, clowns — all to serenade the officers and warrant officers, and generally inaugurate revels suitable to the occasion. The Archbishop with his attendants arrived — an enormous tall figure in the robes and high hat of a dignitary of the Greek Church. The two parties met. The sailors thought he was part of their show of which they had not been told, and danced around him enthusiastically. The Archbishop thought this motley gang was a premeditated insult, and might well have departed to the shore but for the timely arrival of the captain, who, after some embarrassment, explained matters satisfactorily. Meanwhile I waited, wondering what had happened. But all ended happily.
Them lads thought he was a ninja…
Finally Churchill’s description of the Greek race is eloquent, painfully accurate and yet with a touch of flattery just enough to keep everyone happy. No doubt he was a master diplomat able to balance his witty perception with enough praise to keep everyone happy.
THE GREEKS rival the Jews in being the most politically minded race in the world. No matter how forlorn their circumstances or how grave the peril to their country, they are always divided into many parties, with many leaders who fight among themselves with desperate vigour. It has been well said that wherever there are three Jews it will be found that there are two Prime Ministers and one leader ofthe Opposition. The same is true of this other famous ancient race, whose stormy and endless struggle for life stretches back to the fountain springs of human thought. No other two races have set such a mark upon the world. Both have shown a capacity for survival, in spite of unending perils and sufferings from external oppressors, matched only by their own ceaseless feuds, quarrels, and convulsions. The passage of several thousand years sees no change in their characteristics and no diminution of their trials or their vitality. They have survived in spite of all that the world could do against them, and all they could do against themselves, and each of them from angles so different has left us the inheritance of its genius and wisdom. No two cities have counted more with mankind than Athens and Jerusalem. Their messages in religion, philosophy, and art have been the main guiding lights of modern faith and culture. Centuries of foreign rule and indescribable, endless oppression leave them still living, active communities and forces in the modern world, quarrelling among themselves with insatiable vivacity. Personally I have always been on the side of both, and believed in their invincible power to survive internal strife and the world tides threatening their extinction.
On the atomic bomb
Churchill offers a glimpse on the ethical argument of the use of the atomic bomb to “end the war” from the standpoint of the decision makers. Controversial to say at least but still valid to a great extent. No doubt Churchill is eager to demonstrate the determination of the leadership upon taking the decision. His words aim to eliminate all margins for doubt or debate upon the ethical legitimacy of the act of instant extermination of hundred of thousand of citizens. Regardless of what you believe it is masterfully given.
The President invited me to confer with him forthwith. He had with him General Marshall and Admiral Leahy. Up to this moment we had shaped our ideas towards an assault upon the homeland of Japan by terrific air bombing and by the invasion of very large armies. We had contemplated the desperate resistance of the Japanese fighting to the death with Samurai devotion, not only in pitched battles, but in every cave and dug-out. I had in my mind the spectacle of Okinawa island, where many thousands of Japanese, rather than surrender, had drawn up in line and destroyed themselves by hand-grenades after their leaders had solemnly performed the rite of hara-kiri. To quell the Japanese resistance man by man and conquer the country yard by yard might well require the loss of a million American lives and half that number of British — or more if we could get them there: for we were resolved to share the agony. Now all this nightmare picture had vanished. In its place was the vision — fair and bright indeed it seemed —of the end of the whole war in one or two violent shocks. I thought immediately myself of how the Japanese people, whose courage I had always admired, might find in the apparition of this almost supernatural weapon an excuse which would save their honour and release them from their obligation of being killed to the last fighting man. Moreover, we should not need the Russians. The end of the Japanese war no longer depended upon the pouring in of their armies for the final and perhaps protracted slaughter. We had no need to ask favours of them. A few days later I minuted to Mr. Eden: “It is quite clear that the United States do not at the present time desire Russian participation in the war against Japan.” The array of European problems could therefore be faced on their merits and according to the broad principles of the United Nations. We seemed suddenly to have become possessed of a merciful abridgment of the slaughter in the East and of a far happier prospect in Europe. I have no doubt that these thoughts were present in the minds of my American friends. At any rate, there never was a moment’s discussion as to whether the atomic bomb should be used or not. To avert a vast, indefinite butchery, to bring the war to an end, to give peace to the world, to lay healing hands upon its tortured peoples by a manifestation of overwhelming power at the cost of a few explosions, seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance. British consent in principle to the use of the weapon had been given on July 4, before the test had taken place. The final decision now lay in the main with President Truman, who had the weapon; but I never doubted what it would be, nor have I ever doubted since that he was right. The historic fact remains, and must be judged in the after-time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise. It appeared that the American Air Force had prepared an immense assault by ordinary air-bombing on Japanese cities and harbours. These could certainly have been destroyed in a few weeks or a few months, and no one could say with what very heavy loss of life to the civilian population. But now, by using this new agency, we might not merely destroy cities, but save the lives alike of friend and foe.
On the future of Europe and the fate of the world after the war
Churchill ends his books with his vision of the future. You can’t help feeling a bit awkward and disappointed upon reading his vision of a United States of Europe and came to pass compared to that vision.
I must admit that my thoughts rest primarily in Europe — the revival of the glory of Europe, the parent continent of the modern nations and of civilisation. It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe. Hard as it is to say now, I trust that the European family may act unitedly as one under a Council of Europe. I look forward to a United States of Europe in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible. I hope to see the economy of Europe studied as a whole. I hope to see a Council consisting of perhaps ten units, including the former Great Powers, with several confederations — Scandinavian, Danubian, Balkan, etc. — which would possess an international police and be charged with keeping Prussia disarmed. Of course we shall have to work with the Americans in many ways, and in the greatest ways, but Europe is our prime care, and we certainly do not wish to be shut up with the Russians and the Chinese when Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Poles, Czechs, and Turks will have their burning questions, their desire for our aid, and their very great power of making their voices heard.
As well as his prediction for the dawn of the cold war
The United States stood on the scene of victory, master of world fortunes, but without a true and coherent design. Britain, though still very powerful, could not act decisively alone. I could at this stage only warn and plead. Thus this climax of apparently measureless success was to me a most unhappy time. I moved amid cheering crowds, or sat at a table adorned with congratulations and blessings from every part of the Grand Alliance, with an aching heart and a mind oppressed by forebodings. The destruction of German military power had brought with it a fundamental change in the relations between Communist Russia and the Western democracies. They had lost their common enemy, which was almost their sole bond of union. Henceforward Russian imperialism and the Communist creed saw and set no bounds to their progress and ultimate dominion, and more than two years were to pass before they were confronted again with an equal willpower. I should not tell this tale now when all is plain in glaring light if I had not known it and felt it when all was dim, and when abounding triumph only intensified the inner darkness of human affairs. Of this the reader must be the judge. The decisive, practical points of strategy and policy with which this narrative seeks to deal were: First, that Soviet Russia had become a mortal danger to the free world.
I wish to end this walkthough with some lighter themes. The second world war series is heavily induced with politics but its not only about politics. In many points you see nice tales of everyday life during the war as well some delicious anachronisms which sound funny today but which the author could never have guessed. Here are some examples.
Desert vogue circa 1942 and the merits of sunbathing in El Alamein
As the shadows lengthened we reached Montgomery’s headquarters at Burg-el-Arab.
[…] “All the armies are bathing now at this hour all along the coast,” said Montgomery as we stood in our towels. He waved his arm to the westward. Three hundred yards away, about a thousand of our men were disporting themselves on the beach. Although I knew the answer, I asked, “Why do the War Office go to the expense of sending out white bathing drawers for the troops? Surely this economy should be made.” They were in fact tanned and burnt to the darkest brown everywhere except where they wore their short pants. How fashions change! When I marched to Omdurman forty-four years before, the theory was that the African sun must at all costs be kept away from the skin. The rules were strict. Special spine-pads were buttoned on to the back of all our khaki coats. It was a military offence to appear without a pith helmet. We were advised to wear thick underclothing, following Arab custom enjoined by a thousand years of experience. Yet now, halfway through the twentieth century, many of the white soldiers went about their daily toil hatless and naked except for the equal of a loincloth. Apparently it did them no harm. Though the process of changing from white to bronze took several weeks and gradual application, sunstroke and heatstroke were rare. I wonder how the doctors explain all this.
Ingenious bathroom designs circa 1943
Churchill finally figured it out for the Brits in one of his visits to Moscow.
I longed for a hot bath after the length and the heat of the journey. All was instantly prepared. I noticed that the basins were not fed by separate hot and cold water taps and that they had no plugs. Hot and cold turned on at once through a single spout, mingled to exactly the temperature one desired. Moreover, one did not wash one’s hands in the basins, but under the flowing current of the taps. In a modest way I have adopted this system at home. If there is no scarcity of water it is far the best.
Hopefully for the desperate Greek students still struggling with the two taps system even nowadays, Churchill’s co-patriots will soon adopt his ingenious discovery 🙂