Tonight:
4°c
US politician puts blame on Churchill for Second World War
Peter Dominiczak4 Sep 2009
The row over responsibility for the Second World War broke out again last night at the Evening Standard and Intelligence Squared's joint debate on Winston Churchill.
American Republican politician Pat Buchanan argued that the wartime prime minister was a leading proponent of the conflict and that had he not entered the war, the impact of the Holocaust would have been lessened.
About 1,800 people attended the debate at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster on the 70th anniversary of Britain's declaration of war on Germany.
Almost 1,200 members of the audience agreed with the panellists opposing the motion that Britain's wartime prime minister was more of a liability than an asset to the free world.
Just 181 agreed with those for the motion. Before the exchanges had even started one audience member shouted: "How dare we even debate this motion."
Speakers at the debate included historians Antony Beevor and Andrew Roberts and Mr Buchanan, a former adviser to President Richard Nixon. Questions from the audience were conducted by journalist Joan Bakewell.
After the debate, Mr Beevor said: "I never expected to hear Pat Buchanan backing up Vladimir Putin's idea that somehow the Brits were responsible for World War Two.
"Pat Buchanan's arguments during the debate were quite bizarre. At times people didn't know whether he was sympathising with Hitler or just being anti-British."
Historian Richard Overy said: "I thought what Pat Buchanan said was a load of historical nonsense that was all completely out of context."
In a week in which the dignity of ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of war in Poland was marred by furious spats between Russia and Eastern European states over their respective wartime roles, panellists also criticised Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin.
Mr Roberts said: "The Putin government is playing an extremely sinister game with the 70th anniversary.
"They know as well as everyone that the real trigger for war was not the Munich agreement but the Nazi-Soviet pact."
Mr Roberts said the debate was an overwhelming success, adding: "You have to be 76 years old to have voted for Winston Churchill in a general election.
"This was a very special night which enabled a lot of people who previously couldn't to vote for Churchill."
FOR
Pat Buchanan
Former senior adviser to three US presidents, twice candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and author of Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War.
"Hitler started the war, but Britain and France declared war on Germany to honour an agreement with Poland that they could not honour. Eastern Europe was always going to be decided by Germany and Stalin's Russia. For the life of me, I believe Hitler did not want war in the west. Churchill was the leading proponent of taking his nation into those wars and turning them into World Wars."
AGAINST
Andrew Roberts
Historian, author of The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War.
"Winston Churchill was not just an asset to the free world, he was its champion. Using his sublime oratory, he articulated the British people's will to fight fascism. He formulated the great strategy that drew Germany into north Africa and France for Operation Overlord. It is rare for one man to show such service to the free world. Had it not been for Churchill, there might not be a free world. Did he make mistakes? You bet he did. But they are pimples on the mountains of his genius."
FOR
Nigel Knight
Political scientist and economist. Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge.
"It was Churchill's disastrous decision to go on to the Gold Standard which weakened the economy severely. That meant when the Wall Street Crash occurred, the consequence for Britain was worse than it would have been otherwise. World War Two was won by a concentration of forces by the Soviet Union and by western powers from Normandy onwards. In the last year of the war, 10 million lives were lost in Europe. It was delay that cost those lives, and that is what Churchill did."
AGAINST
Antony Beevor
Historian, author of D-Day: The Battle for Normandy.
"We have heard again the facile argument that if Churchill had not delayed the invasion of France, then the western Allies could have launched D-Day in 1943 and reached Berlin and central Europe well before the Red Army. But this argument is absolute rubbish. We did not have sufficient landing craft in 1942, the Luftwaffe was not effectively destroyed until 1944, the U-Boat menace had not been eliminated in the spring of 1943. Winston Churchill was not a liability to the free world. He was our greatest asset."
FOR
Norman Stone
Historian and professor at Bilkent University, Ankara.
"The myth of Winston Churchill is dangerous. Was it a sensible strategy in 1944 and 1945 to bomb Germany to bits? It was very bad realpolitik, whatever its moral purpose. It was a war against tyranny which ended up with Europe under worse tyranny than Hitler's. Something went wrong. Britain got a privileged existence out of the war while the Continent was wrecked. Let us not fall for this smug veneration of Churchill. Yes, there was a moment in 1945, but the rest - I've got my doubts."
AGAINST
Richard Overy
Professor of History at the University of Exeter.
"Churchill recognised his own limitations. He was driven by a historical vision which few other leaders enjoyed. The core of his vision was liberty and freedom. What Churchill was driven by was a deep hatred of tyranny. He had an old fashioned view of English liberty that was about fundamental freedom. Churchill was a warrior for the liberal age and we need to remember that the liberal age was in deep crisis. A man committed to the survival of these core values and a man hostile to tyranny can surely only be an asset."
Reader views (18)
Buchanan is absolutely correct. The only arguments in favour of Churchill are rhetorical and emotional, not logical. Giving the guarantee to Poland in 1939, when that country could simply not be defended, was a pointless, provocative and empty gesture that led directly to war. Only the USSR could feasibly intervene to Poland, and the Poles refused their protection. Britain should have washed their hands of Poland and focused on strengthening the defences of the Western countries. Hitler was a chancer, a gambler - he was not hellbent on world domination but seized opportunities whenever these arose. The guarantee to Poland offered him one such opportunity.
- Mark LV, Reading, UK, 30/10/2011 16:03
Report abuse
Ahhhh lesser small minded semi appeasers and loses like these anti british american revisionist historical maggots will always with hindsight seek to bring down great men and their great achievements , while forgetting that the same comments to Hitler would have resulted in thier being excecuted.
Ever since the war the Americans have been exaggerating their part in it to an almost laughable degree, in truth they came late lost the fewest men, were effective in only a few battles in the europeon campaign, suffered no bombing and unjustly took all the laurals because of their fat cat finacial magnets providing all the money to the combatants,
Their entry into the war was made for them by the japanese without which they would have remained neutral extracting all the profits without suffering any of the pain, they are overbloated overated bunch of cowardly capitalists who would if not attcked by the japanese would have made an agreement with hitler should it have been in thier financial interests.
Churchill knew this and sad to say this was his only fault (that he was half american what ever that is)
- J Walsh, chatham Kent England, 09/12/2010 09:40
Report abuse
Whilst, I imagine it is possible to select events from WWII in a way that can justify almost any view, for me there are two important 'big picture' points that are hard to argue against.
The first is that Hitler ordered the torture and extermination of millions of Jews, gypsies, disabled people, etc. That alone makes me proud of all of those (British, American, Commonwealth, Free French, etc.), that fought against histories most odious regime. War is never a good thing, but how ashamed would we be now, if we lived in countries that had stood back and said 'carry on'. Perhaps Mr. Buchanan would rather history had been different, and he was debating 'How much honour was there in standing by and watching the holocaust happen?'
It is unfortunate that Mr. Buchanan is a Catholic, the Catholic churches collaboration with genocide in WWII is something that I would have thought would have made him keen to avoid such controversy. I am not suggesting for a second that all Catholics are anti-semitic, obviously they are not, it is perhaps an unfortunate co-incidence.
As many of those in concentration camps were used as slave labour, presumably Mr, Buchanan also considers both fascism and slavery acceptable
The second unavoidable point when considering the bombing of Dresden, tragic as it was, is that this decision was not taken by people sitting at their PC, or in a free debate. These were nations that had faced years of suffering, are we really in a position to judge these people?
- Garry, Sutton Coldfield, England, 15/02/2010 02:24
Report abuse
Pat Buchanan is talking nonsense. Firstly, Churcill did not enter the war, that was Chamberlain. It is obvious that Hitler had world-domination in mind. The US was so unprepared for war in late 30s early 40s, if we had not stood our ground, the NAZIS would have gone through them like a knife through butter. Not that we can expect the US ever to admit that, of course. Thank God we had a strong leader like Churchill.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
So if Britain had just sat on its hands , done nothing , not defend or honour its obligations, then Hitler would have confined his war to Eastern Europe? I dont think so.
Hitler wanted everything he could get and the total erradications of Jews from Europe.
I would hate to live in a country that acted the way anti Churchillians would have liked, the I'M allright Jack mentality is alive and kicking with them.
This country gambled everything on defeating Hitler , a gamble that nearly went wrong and all that is British could have been lost, but i would rather that than just cower in the corner hoping Hitler wouldnt attack and leave western Europe and its people and Jewish population exposed and vulnerable.
- Brian, Wiltshire, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
In fairness, Graham, Hitler did not intend on world domination. The documentary evidence is that he simply wanted much of Poland - including a port - and a bit more of Europe, especially the parts taken after WW1. The expansion of the conflict grew from treaties being activated. Adolf actually had a lot of respect for the British Empire and hoped that after a strong land grab the Brits would accommodate German expansion in Europe and remain satisfied with our existing dominion, which was extensive at the time if you recall.
- David, London, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
There is no accounting for ignorance and prejudice. Well done Americans outstanding. But then a Roman Catholic with Irish heritage having an issue with the protestant English, what do you expect?
Ignorance and prejudice, what fun.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Standard comments from everyone including one from "Bob in Cheam". I suspect Churchill would have had more difficulty finding Cheam on a map then he evidently did Dresden. Britain is a Godless country that invented a new religion for the 20th century - "World War II" which comes complete with it's own theology: the fall took place at Munich and rededemption emerged in the form of Churchill against Satan played by Adolf. In the absence of any real religion, the country will be forced to endure this crap for the forseeable future with worship services available on the Discovery Channel nightly.
- Caesium, London, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Always keep in mind that Pat Bucanan is from the same Republican Party where one George W Bush was voted twice for President and in his time in office more people have died in military action involving the USA than anything since their Vietnam failure.
No doubt, Mr Bucanan will eventually try to recommend Jerry Adams and Martin McGuiness for the US Medal of Honour for their efforts towards peace in the world. The same judgement level that ensured Tony Blair got his 'behind closed doors'.
- Ken.H, Harrow. UK, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Churchill was a massive proponent of war prior to becoming Prime Minister. How could Britain be in danger from an army heading east, the idea is wholly preposterous. Secondly why was war never declared on the Soviet Union who took far more of Poland in September 1939 than did Germany. Churchill is equally responsible for millions of needless deaths thats a undeniable fact.
- Lorene Roberts, Benfleet, England, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Just when you think the Americans can't get any more insane, one of them steps up to the plate and proves you wrong, mind you, 15% of the rest backed him. Perhaps the next vote could be "Did Hitler have the right idea?" or "Genocide, is it really all that bad?". Muppets.
- Bob, Cheam, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
First wading thru' all the, yes, ignorant and biased, anti-American comments (George W. Bush even gets mentioned..knee jerk); speaking aa a university-educated professional and an American citizen ( and yes, an RC and part-Irish to boot) that while the standard view of Churchill and WWII can stand a good critical re-evaluation Pat Buchanan's views are muddled and display an historical and indeed a moral myopia. He has to be read against the old American streak of isolationism and nativism. He is by no means typical of even conservative US opinion.
- Robert, New York City, USA, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Hitler did, indeed, maintain that he had no ambitions in the UK--that he would be lord of europe and Britain, lords of the sea. Playing the same game with the Soviets, the betrayal was inevitable. Churchill could only expect the same.
It's interesting that even with the advantage of hindsight, the question of the possibility of German invasion still evades us--except, of course, for Pat Buchanan who knows everything.
- Skip Waterhouse, la pointe, wi. USA, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
This man Buchanan's crime is saying that war at that time wasn't in any way inevitable. You know, the one that cost 60 million lives. The one that England and France declared on Germany. He will now be drooled on by Pavlovian dogs.
- Sal Bando, Calgary, CA, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
These things shouldn't be left to Americans to opine on. The history is complex and relates more to the treaties, especially those ending WW1, than a British PM. It would be just as relevant to ask if the Germans would have started the war as successfully if the US wasn't selling them arms until Pearl Harbour in '41.
US history isn't exactly a model for moral ideals. 2 world wars, 2 late entries - both only for its own interests, and both after arms dealing to both sides.
- David, London, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Its probable that Pat Buchanan has got a guilt complex about Americas tardy entry into the war. It took them two and a half years and for the first year after that they were more of a liability than a help.
- Fred, Horsham, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
Cause of the second world war? Simple - the Germans, in their wisdom, elected a nutter called Adolf Hitler. End of.
- Ted, London, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
It is amazing to hear this topic beeing finally discussed at an open and serious stage. Having studied this matter for years, i found that there are many more things to be discovered, uncovered or simply loudly discussed without beeing criminalized; the current status quo, especially here in Germany means there is one evil which brough the world everything but harm, but plainly neglects the truth and root cause of those two conflicts which caused so many millions in Europe to die. that war was a domino effect, triggered at the beginning of the 20th century and turned Germany from one of the more tolerant, open and peaceful cultures in Europe into a nation which elected Hitler, just for the sake of the British Empire.
There is a Mr. Rhonhoff who made a very detailed study of all events leading to WW2, the factual behaviour of all sides spanniing about 40 years and ending in a minute by minute account, underlied with masses of official and publicly available newspaper reports, government documents. A must read and absolutely not biased, maybe we will see that finally the world gets the facts straight to avoid any other war, as Pat said, the US did exactly do the same tactics of intrigues and lies with the Iraqi war - no lesson learned. We don't need any new wars or souvereign armies, just an UN controlled intervention force. We do not need secret services for enforcing, creating and fueling dictatorship and wars for medieval and outdated greedy politics.
- Bernie, Berlin, Germany, 15/02/2010 01:24
Report abuse
