Sir Winston Spencer Churchill lived a stormy exciting life. A famous politician, writer and even a bit of an adventurer, he became a symbol that united not only his own nation, but also other European nations in the fight against fascism. Churchill's memoirs are the most critical. He was not afraid to admit his own mistakes and the 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.
Chronicle of a new 30-year war in Europe
“The Second World War”, part I (volumes 1, 2) the author himself considered in the preface as a continuation of the conversation about the First World War. And along with such no less original works as "Eastern Front", "World Crisis", "Consequences" Winston Churchill called the chronicle.
This period he rather aptly identified as a new Thirty Years' War in Europe. Looking closely, you can find many analogies. Winston Churchill himself assessed the First World War as a conflict of peoples, not governments.
Recklessness of the winners
The anger, fury and bloodthirstiness of the insane war gave way to a lull in preparation for even more terrible trials. Assessing this interwar period, the author wrote that the winners themselves could hardly stand 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 lost for a number of reasons described and scrupulously analyzed in the "Second World War" by Churchill. If we briefly name them, we get the following:
- weak British government 1931-1935;
- inaction and disunity of England and France in matters of foreign policy towards Germany;
- US isolationism, non-interference policy in European affairs.
A war that could have been stopped with a stroke of a pen
Winston Churchill, according to some historians, was not competent in matters of economics. Even despite the fact that he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain in the 20s. One immediately recalls a whole range of unsuccessful reforms that complicated the economic situation of large sections of the population, which almost led to a dangerous social explosion. The disaster was only averted with great difficulty.
Therefore, on the one hand, it is not surprising that he avoids serious analysisdelicate moments in the complex economic relations of European states. On the other hand, he simply gives some of the most striking examples of the extent of assistance that was given 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 egregious case of supporting the aggressors, who were ultimately responsible for unleashing a new world conflict, can be considered the supply of oil for Italy, when the latter invaded Abyssinia in 1935. Churchill's book "The Second World War" directly indicates that the sanctions that the European allies imposed against Italy did not affect such resources as oil, pig iron, and steel ingots. The United States did not hesitate to supply everything Mussolini needed so much.
A wounded beast is the most dangerous
The Germans are a very proud people who could not come to terms with their defeat. Such brilliant minds as General von Sext and many other best officers in the country gradually, without attracting unnecessary attention, led the training of personnel. This grossly violated the Treaty of Versailles, and Churchill openly admitted that their intelligence simply missed the moment when, under the guise of the Department of Reconstruction, Science and Culture, the legendary General Staff was being formed in Germany, which gathered and trained the best commanders in the world.
Churchill's books are full of factual material, where he tries, thoughclumsily, to reduce the responsibility of the US and Great Britain for raising the monster that these countries were going to throw at the Soviets they so 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 the rule of Hitler became a real threat.
"The Ugly Child of Communism" and "The Munich Tragedy"
This is exactly the wording that the famous politician outlined fascism in his memoirs, thus trying to shift at least part of the blame for the preparations for unleashing a world-scale war onto the young Soviet state. At the same time, and to his credit, in his book The Second World War, Churchill admits that the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia finally gave a free hand to Hitler, who assured his political partners that this was his country's last territorial claim.
The Poles were next. This is despite the fact that they also had certain agreements with Germany, but Churchill avoids this moment. In his works, this is a convenient way, referring to his ignorance, to get away from covering the most inconvenient events of the historical period under consideration.
By and large, the Europeans did not make much difference between communism and Nazism, considering them absolute evil. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill was of a similar opinion, but he is distinguished by onean interesting feature that 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 not agree with them, but he was always interested in understanding what drives 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 for some reason canceled it, and the future influential English politician subsequently evaded new invitations, rightly believing that these visits might not have the best effect on public opinion about him and his career.
Fox and lion rolled into one
Cynicism, deceit and cruelty are the natural conditions of any political game. Especially when the interests of entire nations are at stake. Churchill was full of courage, political flair and a certain amount of adventurism. 1940, no doubt, was a real test of the strength of the UK. She was left alone with her powerful adversary and had to pay a heavy price for all the mistakes and miscalculations of her government.
Churchill was multifaceted, unpredictable. Caution gave way to reckless courage. Bitterness and resentment gave way to pragmatism. This can be seen from the example of the all-round assistance that the allies provided to the USSR during the most difficult military period. Changes in rhetoric and actions were dictated by the conditions of the moment. He appreciated this pragmatism in his opponents as well.
Mysterious, hostile and incomprehensibleRussia
Churchill's book "The Second World War" 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. Evil was assigned to all opponents of the West. It is no coincidence that I. V. Stalin called Churchill a “warmonger”, who had not changed his opinion about the Soviets in the slightest since the time of Foreign military intervention in Russia (1918-1921)
At the same time, he admitted that before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin had a firmer and clearer position on Germany. It was the Western allies who suffered from indecision, for which they later paid the price. The Soviet Union also gained nothing from collusion with Hitler.
You can understand the socialist side. Too many proposals that could radically change the policy of the "main aggressor", the British (whether because of their short-sightedness or malicious intent) dismissed with contempt, believing in the absolute infallibility of their views.
The most difficult and terrible is just ahead
Books about the Second World War, describing the horror, suffering and pain of millions of people caught in a giant meat grinder, are permeated with one idea: this should never happen again in the history of mankind. Churchill, one of the most active and influential participants in those events, also writes about this. But he is more realistic in his wishes and forecasts. In his opinion, even more terrible tests are coming to the world. Not all contradictions were overcome in the course of a global showdown of the mostinfluential people on the planet.
It is the new generation that will have to try to overcome the impending crisis, using the experience of the past. Although after reading this book, there is a feeling of a certain fatalism, since all the roles have long been practically distributed.
Churchill's World War II reviews
The book is ambiguous. There are more than enough controversial points in it, since it is difficult to blame the author for being too frank. Too many episodes left unattended. Also, for obvious reasons, there is no mention of various undercurrents that to one degree or another have influenced and are influencing the natural course of history.
Opinions of readers, of course, were divided. Only time and a new layer of comprehensive information will make it possible to put an end to the disputes. Apparently, this will not happen soon.
