WI Churchill lives another five years: his stance on Rhodesia?

[euromellows]

As it says on the tin. What if Churchill lives another five years to 1970, what will his stance on Rhodesia's UDI be and what impact would it have?

Churchill has already been out of office for a while, but he still commands a great deal of respect and moral strength. I can only speculate he would have sympathy for Rhodesia, though he might feel the UDI was an act of treason against Her Majesty.

To those that know the man better than me, what views is he likely to have and would he state them publicly?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

As it says on the tin. What if Churchill lives another five years to 1970, what will his stance on Rhodesia's UDI be and what impact would it have?

Churchill has already been out of office for a while, but he still commands a great deal of respect and moral strength. I can only speculate he would have sympathy for Rhodesia, though he might feel the UDI was an act of treason against Her Majesty.

To those that know the man better than me, what views is he likely to have and would he state them publicly?

He'd be like 96 at that point, and might well be senile or otherwise in capable of responding.

Its amazing he lasted as long as he did, really.

 

[Nae'Blis]

Assuming he remained reasonably sound of mind and body I think he would be inclined to support them (though not necessarily all that strongly in public), possibly work with Lord Salisbury on various pro-Rhodesian schemes, it might help strengthen the position of the pro-Rhodesians in the Conservative Party putting more pressure on Heath to reach a negotiated end to the rebellion and Rhodesian independence in the 1970s, it also could lead to the Rhodesians keeping the monarchy etc. longer, but it probably would not change much.

 

[Tyr]

Even at his peak he was quite the racist. By that age...I dread to think.

 

[Flocculencio]

He probably wouldn't have liked the UDI but I think he'd have no problem whatsoever with the idea of continuing white supremacy in a Rhodesia which could somehow remain part of the Empire. After all, he was irritated that "Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men" and would probably have applauded the idea that the whites were determined to keep a strong hand on the local blackamoors. He'd prefer, of course, that they do so as part of their English destiny of guiding the natives to "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown".

Churchill was a vicious racist who in my opinion was a personally evil human being with incredibly fine ideals that were to him only to be limited to a small section of mankind. His greatness is only due to the fact that at in the 1930s and 40s the interests of the British Empire mostly coincided with the interests of good for humanity.

I'm glad he lived into the 1960s and I hope that seeing the British Empire start to fall apart in his last years gave him mental anguish and distress.

 

[Evan]

Churchill was a vicious racist who in my opinion was a personally evil human being with incredibly fine ideals that were to him only to be limited to a small section of mankind. His greatness is only due to the fact that at in the 1930s and 40s the interests of the British Empire mostly coincided with the interests of good for humanity.

I'm glad he lived into the 1960s and I hope that seeing the British Empire start to fall apart in his last years gave him mental anguish and distress.

While Churchill was exceedingly British-centric, I wouldn't go so far as to call him evil - just, often, blind to the interests of people unlike him. During the war, though, he gradually started opening up to the British lower classes' interests; I suppose one could say that came from political self-interest, but I'd rather regard that as a legitimate change of mind.

And yes, he definitely was distressed by the decline of British influence in the world. Don't be too happy about that, though - a lot of it came from seeing the high stakes of the Cold War being held by external powers.

 

[euromellows]

Assuming he remained reasonably sound of mind and body I think he would be inclined to support them (though not necessarily all that strongly in public), possibly work with Lord Salisbury on various pro-Rhodesian schemes, it might help strengthen the position of the pro-Rhodesians in the Conservative Party putting more pressure on Heath to reach a negotiated end to the rebellion and Rhodesian independence in the 1970s, it also could lead to the Rhodesians keeping the monarchy etc. longer, but it probably would not change much.

So an Internal Settlement in 1970 perhaps? Although I don't think Smith would go that far while he's still getting support from South Africa and Portuguese Mozambique. Maybe he would agree to increasing the B class electoral roll substantially, and introducing a mandatory quota for some cabinet posts to be held by black rhodesians - but whether that goes far enough for London is questionable. Assuming Churchill provides some moral sympathy in the Conservative party it might be possible.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

While Churchill was exceedingly British-centric, I wouldn't go so far as to call him evil - just, often, blind to the interests of people unlike him. During the war, though, he gradually started opening up to the British lower classes' interests; I suppose one could say that came from political self-interest, but I'd rather regard that as a legitimate change of mind.

And yes, he definitely was distressed by the decline of British influence in the world. Don't be too happy about that, though - a lot of it came from seeing the high stakes of the Cold War being held by external powers.

I think Churchill was a product of his time, his stubborn and frankly racist defense of the British Empire even as it was clearly spiraling into decline does him no credit, but I'm not entirely sure it would have been politically possible for anyone to have done otherwise. It's hard to be immersed into a society where everyone at almost every level of it is taught from day one that Britain is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that Anglo-Saxon civilization is a benevolent and necessary thing to uplift the colored masses of the world and be the person who breaks the cycle and realizes that this is all actually quite a poor facade for a racist colonial system that only barely papers over the blatant greed and exploitation that drive the machine of empire. It's all well and good to look back now and realize that history and human decency were ultimately against Churchill's worldview, but it wasn't so readily-apparent at the time. He certainly wasn't the only person ever to have sat in 10 Downing Street to hold such a view, so in that regard I suppose I don't see what makes him so unique among his contemporaries.

All things considered, Britain handled the end of empire better than a lot of its contemporaries: Portugal and France (even Belgium to some extent) fought bitterly to try and swim against the overwhelming tide of history and hold their colonies. And while Britain was by no means exempt from this trend of interventionism in its current or former colonies (the various Emergencies and the Mau Mau Uprising, for example), its interventions generally seemed to be a whole lot more limited than those of other current or former colonial powers of the era. Had he been in power longer, I think Churchill would have (willingly or unwillingly) come to largely the same conclusions as his successors: the British Empire was dying and the Americans had no intention of propping it up.

 

[Flocculencio]

While Churchill was exceedingly British-centric, I wouldn't go so far as to call him evil - just, often, blind to the interests of people unlike him. During the war, though, he gradually started opening up to the British lower classes' interests; I suppose one could say that came from political self-interest, but I'd rather regard that as a legitimate change of mind.

And yes, he definitely was distressed by the decline of British influence in the world. Don't be too happy about that, though - a lot of it came from seeing the high stakes of the Cold War being held by external powers.

As an Indian, I was more distressed to see that his attitudes towards Indians were deplorable even by the standards of the time. In sharp contrast to the many Britons who respected Indians and the Independence movement even if they didn't agree with them Churchill seems to have been filled with bile, rancor and a literal personal hatred.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Churchill's stance will likely be dreadful; he was so very much a product of the fin de seicle. The thing about Winston Churchill is that he was a very good writer, and had the sensibility of the hero of a Victorian boy's novel. This meant that when the stakes were very survival of everything that was good, right, and holy in the West he'd be rock solid, determined, and put it in words that will inspire everyone to follow him.

When it's a situation that requires some subtlety and seeing multiple sides of an issue, like any sort of Home Rule for Ireland or India, self-determination for any colonies, better conditions for industrial workers, etc., Churchill's reactions often have the insight, empathy, and understanding of a pile of bricks. His views on Ian Smith and Rhodesia would have been quite unspeakable.

 

[Evan]

Churchill's stance will likely be dreadful; he was so very much a product of the fin de seicle. The thing about Winston Churchill is that he was a very good writer, and had the sensibility of the hero of a Victorian boy's novel.

... and that's why I called him, far too often, blind. I still see a difference between that and personal evil, though.

Really, there was a lot in Churchill not to admire. He was often grumpy, pigheaded, too proud to admit error, loved dominating whatever conversation he was in, and would argue with whoever stood up to him. Though to his credit, he would often recognize error even without admitting it, and he would eventually respect people for standing up to him. And in the great moment of trial when the fate of Europe was at stake, he, with all his pigheadedness and pride, stood strong and inspired Britain to stand for the right.

 

[Seleucus]

I think Churchill was a product of his time, his stubborn and frankly racist defense of the British Empire even as it was clearly spiraling into decline does him no credit, but I'm not entirely sure it would have been politically possible for anyone to have done otherwise. It's hard to be immersed into a society where everyone at almost every level of it is taught from day one that Britain is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that Anglo-Saxon civilization is a benevolent and necessary thing to uplift the colored masses of the world and be the person who breaks the cycle and realizes that this is all actually quite a poor facade for a racist colonial system that only barely papers over the blatant greed and exploitation that drive the machine of empire. It's all well and good to look back now and realize that history and human decency were ultimately against Churchill's worldview, but it wasn't so readily-apparent at the time. He certainly wasn't the only person ever to have sat in 10 Downing Street to hold such a view, so in that regard I suppose I don't see what makes him so unique among his contemporaries.

All things considered, Britain handled the end of empire better than a lot of its contemporaries: Portugal and France (even Belgium to some extent) fought bitterly to try and swim against the overwhelming tide of history and hold their colonies. And while Britain was by no means exempt from this trend of interventionism in its current or former colonies (the various Emergencies and the Mau Mau Uprising, for example), its interventions generally seemed to be a whole lot more limited than those of other current or former colonial powers of the era. Had he been in power longer, I think Churchill would have (willingly or unwillingly) come to largely the same conclusions as his successors: the British Empire was dying and the Americans had no intention of propping it up.

My impression is that Winston, at least, was especially conservative/reactionary among the Tories. During the 1926 strike, for instance, Baldwin reportedly had to restrain Churchill's impulse to use machine guns on the strikers.

 

[Saladan]

I gotta say after reading on some of the man's personal views and some of his behavior and policies, I really don't think the whole "product of his time" can or even should be used as a defense.

The man was a honestly very unpleasant individual that only looks heroic by virtue of having someone far worse than him stand out. If I had to be blunt, I'd go so far as to say that if ww2 never occurred he'd be remembered as something of a bastard.

 

[MattII]

He certainly wasn't the finest humanitarian that ever existed, but I don't think he'd be judged much worse than many others, because the thirties and forties were hardly a time of racial equality in most of the world (Jim Crow for example).

 

[Flocculencio]

I gotta say after reading on some of the man's personal views and some of his behavior and policies, I really don't think the whole "product of his time" can or even should be used as a defense.

The man was a honestly very unpleasant individual that only looks heroic by virtue of having someone far worse than him stand out. If I had to be blunt, I'd go so far as to say that if ww2 never occurred he'd be remembered as something of a bastard.

Yup, there you go.

He just happens to have been an utter bastard who was a superb narrative writer and, importantly, happened to live in a society which did have, at heart, some genuinely noble and idealistic principles.

A Churchill born and brought up in a similar extremely wealthy gentry/noble family in, say the Deep South would have been one of the most talented, persuasive and prolific writers on the intractability of the negro and the need for white men to dominate and civilise them. His History of the Anglo-Celtic Peoples would have been a terrifying classic.

Whatever is good in Churchill merely reflects whatever was good about his society and the times he lived in. Whatever was bad about Churchill reflects the darkest and most putrid aspects of that same society. The fact is that many others reflected those ideas of Freedom, Liberty, Progress and Justice (if not in as talented a narrative manner as Churchill)- but not nearly as many reflected the Darkness to anywhere near the extent he did.

I think this discrepancy is in the man, not the times.

 

[Flocculencio]

He certainly wasn't the finest humanitarian that ever existed, but I don't think he'd be judged much worse than many others, because the thirties and forties were hardly a time of racial equality in most of the world (Jim Crow for example).

The trouble is, as others have said, is that Churchill's views could be seen as reflecting the attitudes of the 1890s- and even then I'd think they might have been a little bit on the radical side. By the 30s and 40s his views were extreme even by the standard of other Tories.

 

[Magniac]

Australian political writer Graham Freudenberg recounts an anecdote about '50s era Churchill referring to the constitutional Dominion PMs as 'white trash'.

If that was his attitude, I don't think he's going to think much of Ian Smith.

 

[Baron Bizarre]

As an Indian, I was more distressed to see that his attitudes towards Indians were deplorable even by the standards of the time. In sharp contrast to the many Britons who respected Indians and the Independence movement even if they didn't agree with them Churchill seems to have been filled with bile, rancor and a literal personal hatred.

Do you (or anyone else here) happen to know whether they show Doctor Who in India? When I first saw the Matt Smith episodes where the Doctor was all buddies with Churchill, I remember thinking "I wonder how the Indians feel about seeing Churchill being portrayed as a lovable old curmudgeon?"

 

[Librarian]

[*Looks into crystal ball*]
A Churchill born and brought up in a similar extremely wealthy gentry/noble family in, say the Deep South would have been one of the most talented, persuasive and prolific writers on the intractability of the negro and the need for white men to dominate and civilise them. His History of the Anglo-Celtic Peoples would have been a terrifying classic.

Thank you, God.

In any case, a 95-year-old Churchill's opinion would likely not have too much influence on opinions about Rhodesia. Decolonisation was so thoroughly dominating the views of the British political scene that regardless of whether he supported Ian Smith (Which I totally and sincerely doubt) or opposed his rejection of the monarchy and felt it disqualified the legitimacy of the country, along with the fact that he was not actually a white supremacist and was fine with the empire dissolving by this point, it would make little difference, except regarding perceptions of him after his death.

Edit: Flocculencio's rabid hatred of Churchill makes for amusing reading. This thread has generated quite some entertained responses from those i've linked it to: Churchill really is despised by hardline leftists these days, isn't he?

"You have enemies? Why, it is the story of every man who has done a great deed or created a new idea. It is the cloud which thunders around everything that shines. Fame must have enemies, as light must have gnats. Do not bother yourself about it; disdain. Keep your mind serene as you keep your life clear." - Victor Hugo

 

[Flocculencio]

Do you (or anyone else here) happen to know whether they show Doctor Who in India? When I first saw the Matt Smith episodes where the Doctor was all buddies with Churchill, I remember thinking "I wonder how the Indians feel about seeing Churchill being portrayed as a lovable old curmudgeon?"

I doubt it. I don't think it'd be of much interest. I tried watching it when I was at uni in the UK and they started the new series and I honestly thought it was a highly mediocre series with little attraction unless you have nostalgia value or value it for its English cultural chic (which is why my hipster students here in Singapore like it).

In India I don't think they really dwell on Churchill much. The focus tends to be much more on the direct negotiations for independence and even the Bengal famine doesn't get that much attention. I think with with the trauma of Partition happening immediately after the war years everything else fades into the background.