Monday, Jun. 05, 1944

Plain Talk

Everybody could understand every word spoken by Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons and the world last week. In the great manner of a great reporter, orator and historian, Churchill told the Allied peoples much that they had not known before about their war. He also told them exactly what he thought they were fighting for, exactly what they were not fighting for.

No other leader had done just this for the Allied cause.

War to Win. Of the war, its objectives and its necessities, Winston Churchill said:

P:"As this war has progressed, it has become less ideological, in my opinion."

P:"At this time, in policy and in war, our objective is the same--namely, to beat the enemy as soon as possible."

P:"In one place we support a king, in another a Communist. There is no attempt by us to enforce particular ideologies. We only want to beat the enemy, and then, in happy and serene peace, let the best expression be given by the will of the people."

P:"... The Atlantic Charter remains the guiding signpost, expressing the vast body of opinion among all the powers now fighting together against tyranny. [But] the Atlantic Charter in no way binds us about the future of Germany. It has no quality of a bargain or contract with our enemy."

". . . The principle of unconditional surrender . . . will be adhered to as far as Nazi Germany and Japan are concerned. ... I have repeatedly said that unconditional surrender gives the enemy no rights, but it relieves us from no duty. Justice will have to be done and retribution will fall upon the wicked and the cruel. Miscreants who set out to subjugate first Europe and then the world must be punished. . . ." P: "We intend to set up a world order and an organization equipped with all the necessary attributes of power ... to prevent future wars. . . . There must be room in this great new structure of the world for happiness and prosperity for all, and in the end it must be capable of giving happiness and prosperity even to the vanquished nations."

"This Single Purpose." From his vast knowledge of the world today, Churchill the historian selected his facts with an eye singly on victory--"this single and dominant purpose." He did not pretend to tell all the facts; to have done so would have helped the enemy. Instead he chose his words with skill, with British good humor, with the air of an artist conscious of his own performance. Aware that both friend & foe were listening, he said:

"I must therefore pick my way among heated plowshares, and in this ordeal the only guides are singleness of purpose and a good, or at any rate, well trained conscience."

So guided, he gave the world an unexampled report on the war behind the fronts.

Turkey. "I thought it right to speak bluntly today," he said. Bluntly he spoke: Turkey, wishing the Allies well, had nevertheless misjudged the Allies' chances and refused to come in against Germany. "We have, therefore, with great regret, discontinued the process of arming Turkey because it looks probable that the Allies will be able to win the war in the Balkans and generally throughout Southeast Europe without Turkey being involved at all." By ending all shipments of chrome (for alloys) to Germany, Turkey had given valued help, for which her "honored President Inoenue" was due thanks. But that was not enough to "procure for the Turks the strong position at the peace table which would attend their joining the Allies."

In short: the door is still open.

Italy. If mistakes had been made in Italy, they were military, not political. ("It may be that after the fall of Mussolini our action might have been more swift or audacious.") For the land of Italy he had a traveled Briton's feeling: ". . . this beautiful country suffering the worst horrors of war . . . with the hideous prospect of a red-hot rake of battle lines being drawn from sea to sea right up the whole length of the peninsula."

Premier Badoglio and Vittorio Emanuele III have done well for the Allies. "I have every confidence in this Italian government. ... It will require further strengthening and broadening. . . . But, at any rate, it is facing its responsibilities manfully and is doing all in its power to aid the Allies." After the battles in Italy are won, the Italians will choose "whatever form of democratic government, whether monarchial or republican, they desire." Added the Prime Minister of a democratic monarchy: "I emphasize the word 'democratic' because it is quite clear that we shall not allow any form of Fascism to be restored or set up in any country with which we have been at war."

Spain. Said Winston Churchill: "I am here to speak kindly words about Spain." He did with a warm aside for his Francophile Ambassador to Madrid, Sir Samuel Hoare.

"Some people," said Churchill, "think that our foreign policy toward Spain is best expressed by drawing comical or even rude caricatures of General Franco, but I think there is more than that." Specifically: Spain might have wrecked Allied plans for the North African invasion. As many as 600 invasion planes at one time crowded Gibraltar's airfield within range of Spanish guns; a great fleet of Allied shipping rested in Spanish waters, under Spanish guns. But the Spaniards did not interfere. If they had, "the Strait of Gibraltar would have been closed, and all access to the Mediterranean would have been cut off from the west, and the Spanish coasts would have become a nesting place for German U-boats."

Defensively, but with no marked awareness of a slight contradiction, Churchill added: "If in some directions they have taken an indulgent view of German U-boats ... or have continued active exportations to Germany, they made amends ... at Gibraltar. . . ." "

As for Spain and Fascism : "Let me add this hope, that she will be a strong in fluence for the peace of the Mediterranean after the war. The internal political arrangements in Spain are a matter for the Spaniards themselves. It is not for us to meddle in these affairs as a government."

Laborite Emanuel Shinwell, an old baiter of Churchillian logic, observed that Fascism in Italy and Fascism in Spain seemed to be treated differently. Asked Shinwell: "What is the difference?"

Churchill replied: ". . . Italy attacked us. There is a clear line of distinction between nations who go to war with you and nations who leave you alone." Another member suggested that any Fascist government is "a preparation for attack" on democracy. Churchill answered that his remarks about abolishing Fascism and Naziism applied only to enemy powers and their satellites, not to any & all governments "whose internal form of ad ministration does not come up to our ideas." "

Surely," he said again, "anyone can see the difference." Shinwell: "What is the difference?" Churchill : "There is all the difference in the world between a man who knocks you down and one who leaves you alone."

Persistent Mr. Shinwell unwarily agreed that he welcomed "anything that would do good for the common cause." The Prime Minister then scored a triumph of repartee if not of ideology. Said he, grinning at "Manny" Shinwell: "You have failed as a real opposition figure because you could never conceal your satisfaction when we win -- and we sometimes do."

But, in the ear of many an M.P., and of many a plain Briton, Manny Shinwell's question still rang: "What is the difference?"

France. Winston Churchill accepted the Roosevelt-Hull definition of General Charles de Gaulle's status: his Government 1) will "exercise leadership in the matter of law and order in the liberated area of France" 2) will be under General Eisenhower's supervision until the fighting ends. But Churchill was more friendly than Washington had ever been, sounded genuinely glad when he announced that De Gaulle was coming to London. He gave De Gaulle and the French Empire much credit for tangible contributions to Allied victory, said that these services entitled the De Gaulle Government to "the fourth place in the Grand Alliance" against Hitler. And the Prime Minister painstakingly explained the reservations: "We do not wish to commit ourselves . . . without more knowledge than we now possess of the situation in the interior of France."

As for Vichy and all its men: thumbs down.

Greece. Reporter Churchill had two scoops: 1) a whole brigade of the Greek Army in Egypt recently revolted, killed a British officer, was interned (see Greece); 2) with a ferocity never before detailed, civil war in Greece had been raging until lately.

Preliminaries to the recent coalition of Greek factions "disclosed an appalling situation in Greece." The military section of Greece's dominant, Communist-led E.A.M. had terrorized other Greeks, so alienated the population in many places that the Germans were able to form security battalions of Greeks to fight the E.A.M. "Thus," said Churchill, "it seemed to be a case of all against all, and no one but the Germans rejoicing." But matters had improved. Premier George Papandreou had completed a coalition (TIME, May 29), the E.A.M. had joined, the Communists had even sent Churchill "a very agreeable letter"--which was more, said the P.M., than the House's lone Communist Willie Gallacher had done.

As to the future of his protege. King George II of Greece, Mr. Churchill said not a word. Of the King's recent past, the Prime Minister said warmly that George had risked his life to visit his troubled forces in Egypt, hasten Greek unity.

Yugoslavia. There, as elsewhere, the Allies' object was: ". . . to beat the enemy as soon as possible, to gather all forces together for that purpose in priority to any other purpose." For that reason, the Allies had recognized the ascendancy of Communist Marshal Tito and his Partisans. Churchill recorded the already known fact that young King Peter had fired his exiled Premier Bozhidar Purich and his War Minister, Chetnik General Draja Mihailovich (who "has not been fighting the enemy"). Then Churchill recognized a long-range, sometimes overlooked fact about multiracial Yugoslavia:

". . . This question does not turn on General Mihailovich alone. There is also a very large body, amounting perhaps to 200,000 Serbian peasant property owners, who are anti-German but strongly Serbian. . . . They are not as enthusiastic in regard to Communism as some of those in Croatia and Slovenia. Marshal Tito has largely sunk his Communistic aspect in his character as a Yugoslav patriotic leader. He has repeatedly proclaimed that he has no intention of reversing [Serbia's] property and social systems . . . but these facts are not accepted yet by the other side."

Yugoslavia plainly was no subject for "a single-track mind with no consideration for anything else." Finally: ". . . all questions of monarchy or republic or rightism or leftism are strictly subordinate to the main purpose. . . ."

Poland. "I have an impression that things are not so bad as they may appear on the surface between Russia and Poland."

Russia. Russians can fight. Besides, they have changed for the better ("remarkable broadening . . . the religious side of Russian life has had a wonderful rebirth ... an atmosphere of candid friendliness").

Commonwealth & Empire. The Dominion Premiers stood "in firm array" after their recent conference (TIME, May 1 et seq.). Said Churchill: "We have advanced from vague generalities to more precise points of agreement, and we are in a position to carry on discussions with other countries within limits which we have imposed upon ourselves."

If those limits, imposed by a strong sense of Dominion independence, seemed unduly narrow to the Prime Minister, he did not seem to worry unduly. In fact, referring to Commonwealth & Empire, he got off a fine Churchillian quip: "The word Empire is permitted to be used, which may be a great shock to a certain strain of intellectual opinion."

The World Ahead. For his postwar "structure of the world," Churchill bluntly proposed "a world-controlling council" of the major powers. There would also be a world assembly of powers (i.e., a sort of International House of Representatives). Most important: "We must undoubtedly in our world structure embody a great deal [from] the League of Nations. We must arm our world organization and make sure within the limits assigned to it that it has overwhelming military power."

Beyond that, Churchill would not go while the war was still to be won. But his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, added some details:

P:The "executive" should include the U.S., Britain, Russia, China.

P:Rules should be few at the beginning. The organization should grow by practice, not try to start with a fixed, rigid code.

P:The assembly should strive for economic as well as political collaboration.

In a speech as lofty as Churchill's was plain, Eden sought to exorcise some of the forces bedeviling Allied diplomacy. International suspicion, said he, "has unhappily always played its part in Anglo-Russian relations, and it has a habit of accumulating suspicions on their side which produce countersuspicions on ours and, before we know where we are, a mountain of suspicion is the result."

For all nations, big or small, Eden stated what he hoped they would accept as the mainspring of British foreign policy: "We want... to try to maintain a standard of honesty, of fair dealing, of international good faith. . . . Human intercourse is based on good faith, on keeping of promises, on honoring the pledged word between man and man.

"Unless real understanding is achieved, the future is very dark indeed."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.