Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 2:04pm

Churchill-Finest Hour

On the anniversary of the beginning of World War II, I recall this speech of Churchill, and his presentation, before the beginning of the Battle of Britain in 1940, of alternative futures for mankind based upon how the war came out.  For all our problems since the Allied victory in that war, the mind recoils from what the world would have been like after an Axis victory.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
e.
e.
Tuesday, September 1, AD 2009 6:25pm

This is but one of many eloquent speeches delivered by Churchill.

Quite telling that the isolationists back then relied on George Washington as their advocate to refrain from those impending events (the same from which the United States itself would historically supplant Britain as World Power), especially as concerning foreign alliances; while those who were interventionists adopted Churchill as theirs.

It is recalled that when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, the man actually proclaimed an automatic victory for the side of the Allies.

Mr. H
Tuesday, September 1, AD 2009 11:01pm

Where are the great statesmen of today?

Mr. H
http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 8:27am

I cannot overstate enough how annoyed I get when ‘Old Right’ and libertarian conservatives are branded as ‘isolationists’ simply because they see greater consequences by military intervention.

c matt
c matt
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 10:28am

Washington had no problem with foreign alliances as long as they served the interests of America

I’m confused – you say this as though it were a bad thing?

c matt
c matt
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 10:31am

Which I think is Anthony’s point – as far as I can gather, paleo and libertarian conservatives are not necessarily against all foreign alliances, but only those that serve no legitimate American interest.

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 12:53pm

“No, I say this in approval. That is why I think the America Firsters prior to World War II were blind fools as it clearly was in America’s interest to stop Nazi Germany as quickly as possible.”

While it might very well have been in America’s interest to stop Nazi Germany, I would say that America sure could use some more ‘America First’ attitudes today. One of the detrimental after effects of the WWII intervention, in my opinion, was the rise of a philosophical tendency to see the United States as being responsible for global security— the ‘policeman of the world’ as it is referred. That would seem to me a perpetual ‘foreign entanglement’ without real benefit.

e.
e.
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 1:36pm

“… I would say that America sure could use some more ‘America First’ attitudes today.”

No doubt, a person who once himself joined in the ‘America First’ rallies of yester years.

What’s next?

Those from Socialist Party, U.S.A.?

(Incidentally, might Joe Hargrave been a former member thereof?)

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 3:09pm

“The advantage of the US being involved abroad Anthony is thus far we have avoid a World War III.”

Of course, we can really never know if that is true. Both World Wars occurred thanks more to deficiencies in European politics and economics than to U.S. non-interference. American intervention in WWI for example, tipped the scales in favor of France and Britain preventing them from ever having to properly work out their stalemate with Germany. If we want to talk about things that could theoretically have been avoided, Germany’s humiliation and thus WWII was quite avoidable.

Guys like Lincoln, Churchill and Roosevelt are always heralded as heroes, but its seemed to me they were interested more in maintaining or increasing their nation’s superior place in the world over peace for the sake of…well…peace. To the former end, exacerbating and maneuvering crises is the proper strategy. The latter goal would result in political accusations of cowardice, and of course, that is not an acceptable risk.

e.
e.
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 3:15pm

“…more interested in maintaining or increasing their nation’s superior place in the world…”

Might I introduce you to the notion of Manifest Destiny?

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 3:19pm

“Might I introduce you to the notion of Manifest Destiny?”

What’s your point?

e.
e.
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 3:54pm

Our nation initially consisted a mere 12 colonies.

Do you really insist on casting as un-heroic historical figures in history simply due to their having had interest in maintaining/increasing the nation’s superiority?

If so, you might find a vast number of suspects in our American history, not only Lincoln and Roosevelt.

e.
e.
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 3:57pm

corrigenda: obviously, “13”; not 12.

That’s what I get for doing too many things at the same time. Apologies.

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 4:35pm

Don, as much as you and I agree on fundamental matters we part ways severely on foreign affairs. You have much more of I guess what I would phrase as a ‘triumphalist’ view of American history— you admire the strong, particularly the ones willing to flex military might. If I’m incorrect in that assessment I apologize.

I find it difficult to admire Truman, for example, a man who dropped the atomic bomb, not once but twice on the Japanese people. I do not find that fact a source of proud distinction for the United States. To me, its sad that ‘neutrality’ is not as respectable a policy position as it once was.

“Do you really insist on casting as un-heroic historical figures in history simply due to their having had interest in maintaining/increasing the nation’s superiority?”

I insist on having both eyes open. I wonder at times, if the people who love to love America love her accumulated power and prestige over her more humble and mundane virtues. Can it be heroic to have an interest in lifting a nation to greater accomplishments? Sure. But its not particularly heroic if that effort involves stepping over the requisite dead bodies to get there. (the Native Americans, the Southern people, the Japanese, the passengers of the Lusitania… take your controversial pick).

So yes, I have a dimmer view of American history, and politics and power in general, that stretch further than Lincoln and Roosevelt. (I’m not a huge fan of guys like Woodrow Wilson, TR or LBJ for example) If I were to compare myself to Don, knowing what I’ve read of his posts in the past- he lives in Lincoln and Roosevelt’s America whereas my sympathies are more with the Jeffersonian line of thinking that is generally thought of as ‘fringe’ in our modern political dialogue.

Anthony
Anthony
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 4:36pm

“corrigenda: obviously, “13?; not 12.

That’s what I get for doing too many things at the same time. Apologies.”

so on some forum somewhere is a reference to ’13 apostles’? 🙂

e.
e.
Wednesday, September 2, AD 2009 4:39pm

Anthony:

Well.. ;^)

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top