(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
The other day I listened to a discussion, the outcome of which was this: the participants agreed Churchill wasn’t such a great man. He only seems that way, they said, because his ideas and actions are always being compared to people like Hitler and Mussolini. If he was compared to someone like – and here the discussants all agree on Gandhi – well, Churchill wouldn't look so great matched against Gandhi.
I didn’t say anything, but I thought to share a reaction with you here in the series.
So I went home and got out some notes I made a few years ago about Gandhi.
Let’s compare Churchill and Gandhi positions with regard to what were then, and are always, literally life and death matters: our response to violence and the kind of governance we accept for ourselves and others.
Churchill first.
It’s Oct. 29, 1941. Churchill's speaking to the students at his old school, Harrow:
“Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.''Vintage Churchill!
Now Gandhi.
On Apr. 9, 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Four days later Gandhi urged Danes, Norwegians and others to adopt a passive, non-cooperative response to the Nazis, even if that meant mass slaughter. He told Europeans:
“ The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and women simply dying rather then surrender to the will of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery.”That wasn’t a one-day only response. On June 29, 1940, with the Battle of France lost and the Battle of Britain about to begin, Gandhi advised the British Viceroy that Britain should:
“…fight Nazism without arms…invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island. If these gentlemen choose to occupy you homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered.”The Viceroy later described himself as “taken aback.”
(I’ll get the text citations for the Gandhi by Tuesday when I’ll be at a university library.)
The deaths of millions never softened the Nazis. If anything, slaughter seems to have energized them to even greater evil; something Churchill had predicted.
As long as people know some history and value their Western freedoms, Churchill will rank among the Immortals.
1 comments:
Ghandi had courage. Except for that virtue all his other reputation was earned for him by better men than he.
He was the recipient of the good grace and humanity of men that declined to violate the basic tenets of morality and humaneness.
Ergo, his reputation was actually the result and the possession of many of his betters that chose to not kill him, even if it meant not attaining their goals.
Had he lived under or near Hitler or Mussolini or Tojo, nobody would have ever heard of him, for he would have been long dead before he was ever heard.
Ghandi's reputation actually belongs to others more willing to defend themselves and the weak, but not willing to assault others just for political or economic gain. I admire Ghandi's courage, nothing else he did was admirable absent the tolerance of other better men.
Please John, the next time you hear someone offer such inanities as you have described, set them straight or tell them what I said.
Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century without whom there would probably not be a free world.
Post a Comment