It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.Winston Churchill gave a great speech on November 12, 1940.
Repeated word: "sincerity."
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Jeez I thought that was Obama talking about George Bush.
Looks like I was close.
No cigar though.
Churchill's use of the word sincerity is instructive with respect to the politicians of today; so many of them seem utterly insincere.
Churchill was a Mensch
"What is amazing is Churchill's loyalty to Chamberlain during this time (the 1940 period from when Germany launched against the West to when Roosevelt decided to support England). This was due not only to Churchill's political calculation. He... knew that any evidence of his disagreement would be dangerous to him and to the unity of the British people and their war effort. Yet, the absence of his criticism of Chamberlain was not only public, it was also private...
... During the months of the Reluctant War Chamberlain himself grew to appreciate that. In many ways he and Churchill came closer together, and not merely because of the political necessity of national unity. At times, and at least in one part of his mind, Chamberlain began to think that perhaps he and Churchill were complementary in this war, that for some things Churchill was needed, while for others, including the leadership, he, Chamberlain, was the right man."
- John Lukacs, "The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler", 2001
Once upon a time, people were sincere about sincerity.
If I may ask, Prof., which part do you not believe (or which part deserves the "things not believed" tag)?
"If I may ask, Prof., which part do you not believe (or which part deserves the "things not believed" tag)?"
That's a tag I use for the topic of sincerity. I avoid tag proliferation and in the past I've put sincerity there. Click the tag and see what I'm trying to group together. I was going to expound on the tagging in the post, but decided not to.
It fell to Winston Churchill to make an appropriate statement on the occasion of Chamberlain's death, and he did a brilliant job of it. It's truly awesome.
I wanted to draw attention to the issue of sincerity as it relates to present-day efforts at peace talks, not to question whether Churchill was sincere about Chamberlain's sincerity or whether Chamberlain was in fact sincere.
This needs a "decency" tag, I think. That is such a decent speech: there is no dissembling, no ignoring the disaster that the dead man presided over, and yet there's a recognition of his good motives and good qualities even in the midst of considering his mistakes.
How many politicians could act with such decency today? It's a depressing thought. Even if they had the impulse to be fair and to build up a dead opponent's memory instead of tearing it down, their handlers and speechwriters would surely insist on the opposite. After all, there's always an election coming up, and the base needs raw meat thrown to it.
I love that speech. Materfully tactful. Churchill could have bashed Chamberlain but he didn't; he emphasized what was good in him. Left unsaid, although perhaps clearer when the eulogy was delivered, is that a good, honorable man can be taken to the cleaners by ruthless evildoers.
It fell to Winston Churchill to make an appropriate statement on the occasion of Chamberlain's death, and he did a brilliant job of it. It's truly awesome.
Thanks, that makes sense and I agree with your assessment.
I'm willing to bet Churchill would have something to say about whether sincerity was a necessary or sufficient condition for political success or finding the correct path, but the largeness of spirit he shows in that statement (especially given their personal history) is remarkable.
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler were all masters of inspirational oratory. We've grown too cynical to respond to that now, and that's probably a good thing.
As for sincerity, the road to Hell is paved with it.
One can be sincere and dead wrong at the same time. Good intentions are not enough. Thinking happy thoughts is not enough. You have to understand who you are really dealing with and what they really want if you wish to succeed. History judges on results, not intentions.
So who is going to be Churchill looking back and saying nice things about Obama while he/she digs us out of this mess? And will Obama go along with it?
It's also a reminder that Chamberlain was also doing what the country wanted. Avoid war at all costs. Churchill was virtually alone in thinking it was not something they could or should avoid. Churchill understood history and I believe he knew how Chamberlain would be viewed in hindsight. It was a gentle reminder that Chamberlain was wrong, but so were all of you who agreed with him at the time and now pretend otherwise. The King himself brought Chamberlain to the Palace Balcony to answer the cheers of the large celebratory crowds after the Munich conference. That balcony appearance by a politician wouldn't be repeated again until VE Day.
The grace, dignity, humanity of that speech is very moving, knowing as we know the contempt that Churchill had for Chamberlain's policies. The ability to hold an opponent in high esteem has been demonstrated by both Bush ex-presidents and, happily and perhaps surprisingly, by Bill Clinton. It would be a different Barack Obama who could deliver such a fitting appraisal of another's strengths without devoting a good bit of time to his own.
Nobody criticizes Chamberlain for being insincere. He was disconnected with reality. He "hoped" Hitler would "change".
The most sincere incompetent man who is disconnected with reality wreaks the most havoc.
The trouble with sincerity is that it is a poor consolation if your action or inaction get people killed. Give me competence over sincerity every time.
Surely Kerry is sincere in wanting peace in Ukraine, Syria, Gaza, Libya, Congo, et al. So what, Doofus not only can't deliver, he is arguably making matters worse.
"The only guide to a man is his conscience"
Which is why Barack Obama, a verifiable sociopath will never be considered a decent man.
@Althouse: present-day efforts at peace talks
Is there some place on the planet where in present-day real, bona fide and sincere efforts are being made at talking peace? Really?
As I recall, Chamberlain invented "Leading From Behind," defined as letting the events play out as others chose and acting surprised at bad results that you could once have controlled by lifting a finger.
That's something to keep in mind when thinking about Chamberlain. He died at the darkest hour, in late 1940, without knowing the outcome of the war he thought he was going to prevent and with Hitler triumphant and English liberty in great peril. He never saw the brighter days that eventually came.
Considering what Neville Chamberlain and his government had done to Churchill for the past several years preceding the war, it was big of Churchill to eulogize him that way--but no one has ever been bigger than Churchill.
As soon as Churchill joined the government he served Chamberlain without reservation, even going so far as to "allow himself to be converted into an air-raid shelter to keep the splinters from hitting his colleagues" by taking responsibility for the mistakes of Chamberlain's government.
I am (finally!) reading Churchill's 5-volume history of WW2. His treatment of/relationship with Chamberlain was characteristic of his general approach. I can think of several reasons: (1) what goes around, comes around; and UK Parliament/upper-class world was pretty small. Don't make it personal. (2) He was much more interested in the underlying issue (primarily the collapse of Allied will in the face of Hitlerite resurgence) than he was in scoring points. (3) Relatedly he had given his life to duty as he understood it; to Empire and the British People. That must have made it easier for him to frame the arguments and stick to his principles. I think he believed that others --allies and adversaries-- were similarly honorable.
How quaint.
Add a tag: Kerry is like Chamberlain.
Is there some place on the planet where in present-day real, bona fide and sincere efforts are being made at talking peace? Really?
I believe John Kerry sincerely wants a cease-fire in Gaza. I also believe Netanyahu and Israelis in general sincerely believe peace will come when Hamas has been crushed. And I also believe that Hamas and Gazans in general sincerely believe peace will come when all Jews in Israel have been driven out or killed.
Nice to say, but what matters is what people, and especially politicians, do. Not what they say, and not how sincere they are in their desires.
Running a country is about results, not feelings.
Genuine peace is not a ceasefire. North Korea War of Aggression ended under a cease fire because Eisenhower was not as mean as Truman.
C.S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Sincerity counts for naught when what is sincerely believed does not comport with reality. The first lesson of every introductory economics class is "limited resources and unlimited wants/desires" because it is true. No amount of wishcasting will make that Law of Economics untrue.
Obama may sincerely believe simultaneously that the quantity of health care provision can be increased, quality improved, access improved and costs reduced. However, those goals are impossible. There is no perpetual motion machine. Any view that requires a belief in the impossible to be squared is religious in nature.
And we will see, as with Jimmy Carter, that Obama is ungracious in his post-presidency. But he'll be sincerely ungracious.
On another note:
The pardon of President Nixon was as gracious a move as this Churchill speech.
I would suggest that any Republican elected in 2016 should root out the Leftists who would subvert civil liberties for America's citizens. If Obama pardons the likes of Lois Lerner, then she should be pursued relentlessly in civil actions in which she would no longer be able to plead for 5th Amendment protections.
The same is true for every other member of the "civil" service that has operated to deprive citizens of civil liberties. And I mean that to include Eric Holder and every member of the Department of Justice who have acted as political operatives. I would not be gracious in the same way the Deep South sheriffs deserved no mercy for their acts to deprive American citizens of civil liberties.
Sincerity be damned.
It's also a reminder that Chamberlain was also doing what the country wanted. Avoid war at all costs. Churchill was virtually alone in thinking it was not something they could or should avoid.
Yeah, that's the key thing. The agreements with Hitler were WILDLY applauded by the populace. Churchill was very much a voice in the wilderness. But Poland did change Chamberlain a lot and he vigorously opposed Hitler's attempt to make "peace" with the UK after France's fall.
As I recall, Chamberlain invented "Leading From Behind," defined as letting the events play out as others chose and acting surprised at bad results that you could once have controlled by lifting a finger.
In this case, Chamberlain couldn't do a ton as Britain didn't have a ton of troops to commit and they wildly overestimated German (and, admittedly, French) military strength.
Churchill always said the fall of France was stunning and when told there were no strategic reserves left to protect Paris, he was floored.
German generals who wanted to overthrow him (how serious they ACTUALLY were is a historical debate, but they talked to the Brits a lot) kept saying that if Britain would do ANYTHING to stop Hitler, it'd give them the power to stop Hitler and save Germany from defeat.
Britain and France continuously did nothing. Heck, they did worse than nothing. They openly threatened to attack Czechoslovakia if they tried to defend themselves.
Frequently the choice is between sincerity and competence as with Chamberlin and Churchill.
Unfortunately, with our current ruling class, particularly the occupant of the White House and his cronies - appointed and elected - we can hope for neither.
Hmm..., road to Hell, good intentions, and all that.
"Leading from behind" was a description of the behavior of the Duke of Plaza Toro,a character in the comic opera "The Gondoliers", by Gilbert & Sullivan, in 1889. For over 100 years, leading from behind has been ridiculed.
"In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind--
He found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was at the fore, O--
That celebrated,
Cultivated,
Underrated
Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!"
"The most sincere incompetent man who is disconnected with reality wreaks the most havoc."
John Kerry in Israel recently.
Churchill was being very generous. Chamberlain was a spineless idiot.
btw, I love Churchill but if you read about his life you discover he was an alcoholic and a chauvinist who didn't highly of women.
If the West was on the brink today, the PCBS crowd would never have given Churchill a chance.
It's a very generous eulogy.
Consider that it was given in 1940. War had come, and things were looking very dark. It was hardly necessary to belabor the futility of Chamberlain's attempts for peace. Churchill's case was made more strongly by never making it at all -- if such a good man could not achieve peace, then peace could not be had.
"Owing to the neglect of our defences and the mishandling of the German problem in the last five years, we seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later, on even more adverse terms than at present." — Winston Churchill, 1938
Churchill being generous to a fellow Tory.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा